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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with them while adding the crucial fact that the tool performs no action itself and only returns screen/button/field instructions. The note on Feedly's API being Enterprise-token-only explains why the browser route is required, which is useful context an agent cannot get from annotations.

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 core mechanic is front-loaded and clear, but the description mixes instructions, a self-disclaimer, and an API-availability aside in a single run-on block. The API paragraph justifies the browser approach yet reads as tangential detail that could be trimmed or split out.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the definition needs only to explain what the agent gets back and how to chain it — it does the chaining but never describes the shape of the returned steps or how the specific articles to mark are determined. Adequate to call correctly, incomplete for confident orchestration.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies to the schema side, but the description adds no meaning about how the target articles are scoped despite taking no arguments — the implicit selection (presumably from prior list/search results) is left unexplained. That unaddressed ambiguity slightly pulls it below baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Mark articles as read in the user's own Feedly account') and then clarifies the actual mechanic: it returns step-by-step instructions and 'opens nothing by itself,' with the real action performed via cotlet_browser_* tools. That distinguishes it from the browser siblings, though the name/title alone would mislead an agent into expecting a direct write.

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?

It gives a clear two-step flow (call this for guidance, then act with cotlet_browser_* in the Feedly Cloud Browser), which is genuine routing guidance. However, it never says which articles to mark or that the target set should come from feedly_list_articles or feedly_search_articles first — a real gap for a zero-parameter tool, and no when-not-to-use case is given.

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