unread_counts (unavailable — configuration error)

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

readOnlyHint=true is already in the annotations, and the description does not contradict it. The text is transparent about a failure mode (missing FEEDLY_TOKEN, searched locations, remediation URL), but it discloses nothing about this tool's actual runtime behavior — return shape, scope, or cost — so it cannot support correct invocation once the server works.

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 and reasonably structured — problem, cause, locations searched, remediation, and a warning against workarounds. However it spends most of its length on token-file plumbing and a URL that do nothing to help an agent select or invoke unread_counts.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description would need to convey what unread_counts returns (e.g., unread counts per feed/folder) and its scope, and it does not. What it does explain completely is the configuration failure, which is not the information an agent needs to call this tool correctly.

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 expectation is that no parameter explanation is needed. The description does not confuse this by inventing inputs, so 4 is appropriate; the surrounding config text is unrelated to parameters.

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 unread_counts does. It announces that the whole feedly-mcp server failed to start because no token was found, so an agent learns nothing about the verb or resource of this specific tool. For a name like unread_counts, the reader must guess it returns unread article counts.

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 points to a doctor command, but this is remediation guidance for a broken server, not guidance on when to choose unread_counts over get_articles or search_feeds. Nothing routes the agent among the siblings.

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