WeRead MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions returning 'details and reading progress,' which adds some behavioral context beyond basic search functionality. However, it lacks critical information such as whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or pagination behavior. The description is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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. It avoids unnecessary words and directly states the action and outcome. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating search criteria from return values for clarity.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values in detail (e.g., what 'details' include, format of 'reading progress'), error handling, or operational constraints. For a search tool with 4 parameters and no structured output, more context is needed to guide effective use.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters (keyword, exact_match, include_details, max_results). The description adds marginal value by implying keyword matching across multiple fields (title, author, translator, category), but this is partially covered in the schema. No additional syntax or format details are provided beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high 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 tool's purpose: 'Search for books in the user's bookshelf by keywords and return matching books with details and reading progress.' It specifies the verb (search), resource (books in user's bookshelf), and scope (by keywords). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_bookshelf' (which might list all books without searching).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_bookshelf' (for listing all books) or 'get_book_best_reviews' (for reviews), nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions (e.g., when keyword is optional or required). Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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