get_articles (unavailable — configuration error)

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

With readOnlyHint=true already declared, the description does add genuine behavioral context: the exact auth requirement (FEEDLY_TOKEN or a token file), the paths checked, and the fact that all reads fail until configured. That is real transparency about preconditions, though it describes a broken-server state rather than the tool's actual read behavior (pagination, limits, filters) when functioning.

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 error text is front-loaded with the fix and wastes little, but as a tool description it is entirely off-purpose — every sentence is about configuration remediation rather than the tool. Structure is fine; relevance to the tool's job is absent.

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?

Nothing an agent needs to invoke get_articles is present: no return format, no filters (unread counts, feed/folder scoping), no relationship to siblings. For a read tool with no output schema and five sibling read tools, the description is completely inadequate.

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 tool takes zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so there is no parameter semantics for the description to add. Baseline 4 applies; no penalty for omitting nonexistent parameter docs.

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 never states what get_articles does. It is an MCP startup failure notice about a missing Feedly token, so an agent learns nothing about the tool's verb or resource, and it cannot be distinguished from its siblings (search_feeds, unread_counts, etc.). This is a placeholder error, not a purpose statement.

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 does give one useful operational instruction — 'nothing can be read from Feedly until this is fixed' and 'do not work around it by fetching the news another way' — which tells the agent the tool is unavailable. But it offers no routing guidance against the sibling tools it would otherwise be chosen over, so it is not usage guidance in the normal sense.

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