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. It discloses that the tool returns 'complete document' with listed fields, which is useful behavioral context. However, it lacks details on error handling, permissions, or rate limits, leaving gaps for a read operation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by a concise list of returned fields. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, 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 low complexity (1 parameter) and the presence of an output schema, the description is largely complete. It covers purpose and return fields adequately, though it could benefit from more behavioral details like error cases or prerequisites.

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 description adds meaning by clarifying that 'document_id' is used to retrieve a 'single Reader document', which is not evident from the schema alone (0% coverage). It compensates well for the low schema coverage, though it doesn't specify ID format or constraints.

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 specific action ('Get a single Reader document by ID') and resource ('Reader document'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'list_documents' (which retrieves multiple) and 'get_book' (which targets a different resource). It precisely defines the scope with 'with full content'.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'by ID' and 'full content', suggesting it's for retrieving a specific document's details rather than listing or filtering. However, it does not explicitly state when to use alternatives like 'list_documents' or 'get_book', missing explicit exclusions or comparisons.

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