Readwise MCP HTTP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool returns the created tag with ID and name, which is helpful, but fails to address critical aspects like whether this is a mutating operation (implied by 'Create'), potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and waste no words. The first sentence states the core action, and the second adds useful return information, making it efficient and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (a creation operation with one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details on usage context, parameter meaning, and behavioral traits, making it incomplete for safe and effective use without additional inference.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does not mention the 'name' parameter at all, leaving its purpose and constraints undocumented. However, with only one parameter and an output schema present, the baseline is 3, as the description adds minimal value beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the action ('Create a new tag') and resource ('tag'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from its sibling 'list_tags' or 'delete_tag' in terms of when to use each, which prevents a perfect score.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_tags' or 'delete_tag', nor does it mention prerequisites such as authentication or permissions needed for creation. It simply states what the tool does without contextual usage instructions.

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