Readwise MCP HTTP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering capabilities but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like pagination behavior (implied by page/limit parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what the output contains. The description adds some context about filter values but misses key operational details.

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 concise sentences with zero waste. The first states the purpose, the next two explain parameter semantics. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the core functionality. Could potentially integrate pagination mention for perfect structure.

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 5 parameters with 0% schema coverage and no annotations, the description does well on parameter semantics but misses behavioral context. The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but for a list operation with pagination and filtering, more guidance on usage patterns and limitations would be beneficial.

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 fully. It successfully explains the semantics of all three filter parameters (location, category, updated_after) by detailing acceptable values and formats. While it doesn't mention page and limit parameters, these are self-explanatory pagination controls, and the description covers the more complex filter semantics that would otherwise be undocumented.

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 verb 'List' and resource 'documents in Readwise Reader' with the scope of optional filters. It distinguishes from siblings like get_document (singular) and list_books/highlights/tags (different resources), but doesn't explicitly contrast with search_highlights which might overlap in functionality.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_highlights or get_document. The description mentions optional filters but doesn't provide context about typical use cases or when other tools might be more appropriate.

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