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 key behavioral traits: it returns paginated results (highlights plus total count and next_page) and supports filtering. However, it doesn't cover permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's read-only (though 'list' implies safe). The description doesn't contradict annotations, as none exist.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by specific usage notes and return details. Every sentence adds value: the first states purpose, the second provides a concrete example for a parameter, and the third explains the return format. No wasted words.

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 (5 parameters, filtering, pagination) and no annotations, the description does a good job covering key aspects: purpose, parameter usage example, and return structure. With an output schema present, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it could better address sibling differentiation and behavioral constraints like rate limits.

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 meaningful context for 'updated_after' (ISO 8601 date string with examples) and mentions filtering by 'book' and 'tag,' which map to 'book_id' and 'tag' parameters. It also implies pagination via 'page' and 'limit' through the return structure, though not explicitly naming them. This partially compensates for the schema gap.

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 as 'List highlights with optional filtering by book, tag, or recency,' which specifies the verb (list) and resource (highlights). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_highlight' (singular) and 'search_highlights' (likely full-text search), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_books' or 'list_tags' which list different resources.

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 the mention of filtering options (book, tag, recency) and pagination, suggesting it's for retrieving multiple highlights. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'search_highlights' or 'get_highlight,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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