Get public info about a publication

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description correctly adds value beyond those by noting no authentication is required and that unrelated publications work. It does not discuss failure modes or edge cases, but the safety-relevant behavior is well covered by both annotations and description.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences carry all essential information with no filler. The verb and scope are front-loaded, and the authentication/relationship note is placed second without bloating the definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, but the description explicitly names the returned fields, which is sufficient for a simple read operation. Combined with clear annotations and fully covered parameters, it provides enough context for correct invocation; minor omissions like invalid-URL behavior do not significantly hurt usability.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented. The description adds only mild context by referring to the homepage as the source, but it does not clarify the difference or precedence between publication and publication_url beyond what the schema already says.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb ('Read') and names the exact resource ('public details of any Substack publication from its homepage'), then lists the returned fields: name, description, author, and cover image. This clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings like get_publication_settings or search_publications.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states that the tool needs no authentication and works on publications you have no relationship with, which is strong when-to-use guidance. It does not name a specific alternative for when not to use it, but the context makes the intended use case clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.