search_feeds (unavailable — configuration error)

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds substantial context: a required FEEDLY_TOKEN auth prerequisite, the exact paths checked, a remediation URL, and the hard constraint that no read can succeed until fixed. This is strong behavioral disclosure beyond the annotation, though it describes failure state rather than the tool's normal behavior.

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 message is front-loaded with the failure and remediation, and every sentence is actionable (set token, look here, get a token, run doctor, don't work around). It is slightly verbose but not padded.

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?

For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the failure context is complete enough to stop an agent from retrying blindly. What is missing is any statement of the tool's actual function once the config is repaired, leaving the definition incomplete as a tool description.

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, so the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to clarify about arguments.

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 search_feeds does; it is entirely an error/startup-failure message. An agent reading it cannot tell whether the tool searches feeds, articles, or something else. The stated purpose is 'could not start,' which is misleading as 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 directive: don't work around the failure by fetching news another way, and run 'feedly-mcp doctor.' However, it gives no guidance on when to use search_feeds versus siblings like get_articles or list_feeds, which is the core usage question.

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