Study another writer's Notes

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld). The description adds genuinely non-structured context: the payload is third-party text and should be treated as content to analyze, never as instructions — a prompt-injection guard an agent cannot infer from annotations.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and payload, then the strategic rationale, then the safety caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no repetition of the title or schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description does state the shape of the return (Notes plus likes, replies, restacks), which is enough for an agent to understand the result. Only the sort_by semantics remain underdocumented, a minor gap for a read-only research tool.

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 coverage is 67%: limit and publication are documented in the schema, while sort_by carries an enum and default but no prose. The description adds no parameter-level detail (no guidance on sort_by trade-offs or limit sizing), so it does not compensate for the small gap. Baseline 3 for a partially covered 3-param schema.

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?

States a specific verb (pull) and resource (another writer's recent Notes) and names the payoff data (likes, replies, restacks). It is clearly distinguishable from research_creator_posts, which the description implicitly contrasts with 'studying their posts'.

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?

Gives a clear rationale for choosing this over the sibling research_creator_posts ('often more useful than studying their posts') and frames the use case as competitive research. It stops short of stating explicit when-not conditions or prerequisites such as publication access.

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