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 filtering is optional and gives examples of filter usage, but it doesn't mention behavioral traits like pagination (implied by 'page' and 'limit' parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what the output contains. It adds some context but leaves 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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by specific parameter guidance. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 6 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description is incomplete—it only explains 3 parameters. An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but for a list tool with filtering, more parameter guidance would help. It's adequate but has clear gaps.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 3 parameters: 'category' (lists acceptable values), 'num_highlights_gte' (explains filtering purpose), and 'updated_after' (specifies ISO 8601 format). However, it doesn't cover 'source', 'page', or 'limit', leaving them undocumented. The value added is significant but incomplete.

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: 'List books and sources with optional filtering.' It specifies the verb ('List') and resource ('books and sources'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_documents' or 'list_highlights' beyond the resource name.

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 through parameter explanations (e.g., 'Use num_highlights_gte to filter...'), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_documents' or 'search_highlights'. It provides context for filtering but lacks sibling differentiation.

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