get_readwise_highlights_by_document_ids

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. While it mentions the return type and a potential error case (ValueError for empty input), it lacks critical information such as whether this is a read-only operation, rate limits, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or what happens with invalid document IDs. 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 efficiently structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Raises) and uses minimal, purposeful sentences. Every element adds value: the opening statement defines the tool, and the structured sections provide essential documentation without redundancy or fluff.

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 (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the basics but has significant gaps. It explains the parameter and return type adequately but lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only status, error handling beyond one case) and doesn't address sibling tool relationships. It's minimally viable but incomplete for optimal agent 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?

The description adds meaningful context about the single parameter 'document_ids' by specifying it's 'The IDs of the documents to retrieve highlights for' and mentioning the ValueError case if none are provided. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this compensates well by explaining the parameter's purpose beyond the basic schema type definition.

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 with a specific verb ('Get highlights') and resource ('from Readwise by document ids'), making it immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_readwise_highlights_by_filters', which appears to serve a similar purpose with different filtering criteria.

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_readwise_highlights_by_filters' or explain the trade-offs between filtering by document IDs versus other criteria, leaving the agent without contextual usage information.

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