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 states the tool returns full metadata, which is helpful, but lacks critical details like whether this is a read-only operation, potential error conditions (e.g., invalid ID), authentication requirements, or rate limits. For a retrieval tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps.

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 highly concise and well-structured, with two sentences that efficiently convey the core functionality and return data. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (single parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema, the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose and return metadata adequately. However, it lacks usage guidelines and behavioral details, which are minor gaps in an otherwise solid description.

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, but the description compensates by specifying that the single parameter 'book_id' is used to get a book by ID. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema's type information. However, it doesn't detail format constraints or examples, preventing a perfect score.

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 tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a single book/source by ID'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'list_books' beyond the singular vs. plural distinction, which keeps it from 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_books' or 'get_document'. It mentions retrieving by ID but doesn't clarify prerequisites, such as needing a valid book ID from another operation, or when to choose this over other retrieval tools.

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