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 explains the search behavior (three search types) and return format (highlights with book title, author, URL). However, it doesn't mention pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error conditions that would be important for a search tool.

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 efficiently structured with two paragraphs: first explains the search methods, second provides usage guidelines with examples. Every sentence adds value with no wasted words, and key information is front-loaded.

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 explaining the search_type parameter and return format. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values. However, it leaves most parameters unexplained and doesn't cover behavioral aspects like error handling or performance characteristics.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate. It explains the 'search_type' parameter thoroughly with examples for each enum value, adding significant meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't explain 'query', 'book_id', 'tags', or 'limit' parameters, leaving 4 of 5 parameters without semantic context.

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 searches highlights using three specific search methods (semantic, full-text, or hybrid). It distinguishes from siblings like 'list_highlights' by specifying search functionality rather than simple listing, and from 'get_highlight' by being a search rather than retrieval by ID.

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 explicit guidance on when to use each search_type: 'semantic' for concept queries, 'fulltext' for exact phrase matching, and 'hybrid' as default when unsure. This gives clear alternatives within the tool itself, though it doesn't compare to sibling tools.

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