readwise_topic_search

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'regex matching' and 'case-insensitive' (though the latter is in the schema, not the description), indicating search behavior, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or output format. It adds some context (search scope across multiple fields) but is incomplete for a search tool with no output schema.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Search documents in Readwise Reader by topic') and adds necessary details ('using regex matching on title, summary, notes, and tags') without redundancy. Every word contributes to understanding, making it appropriately sized 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 moderate complexity (search with regex), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is partially complete. It covers the search scope and method but lacks information on behavioral aspects like result limits, error handling, or authentication needs. For a search tool without structured output details, more context would be beneficial to fully guide usage.

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 100%, with the schema fully documenting the 'searchTerms' parameter (type, constraints, and description). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'regex matching' and the fields searched (title, summary, notes, tags), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 ('Search documents') and target resource ('in Readwise Reader by topic'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'readwise_list_documents' (which likely lists without search) and 'readwise_search_highlights' (which searches highlights rather than documents). It specifies the search scope ('regex matching on title, summary, notes, and tags'), making the purpose explicit and differentiated.

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 for topic-based document searches but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't clarify if this should be used instead of 'readwise_list_documents' for filtered results or 'readwise_search_highlights' for content within documents. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context inferred rather than guided.

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