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.

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

readOnlyHint=true is not contradicted — the text confirms nothing can be read. It does surface one genuinely useful behavioral fact (the server is unavailable and why), but it discloses nothing about the tool's actual runtime behavior, return shape, or limits once configured. For a definition that can never execute, this is minimal.

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 failure cause is front-loaded, which is good, but three sentences are spent on remediation paths (env var, token file, lookup locations, URL, doctor command) that belong in setup documentation, not a tool definition an agent reads at call time.

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 tool that is supposed to list feeds in a family of six Feedly tools, the description supplies no purpose, no scope, and no relationship to siblings. It is complete only as an error notice, not as a tool definition.

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 schema has zero parameters, so per the baseline rule a 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to clarify or compensate for on this dimension.

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 list_feeds does. It is entirely an installation/configuration error message about a missing FEEDLY_TOKEN, so an agent learns nothing about the tool's verb, resource, or scope relative to siblings like get_articles or search_feeds. Misleading-by-omission at best.

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 operational instructions (set FEEDLY_TOKEN, run the doctor, don't work around it) but zero guidance on when to select this tool versus its five siblings. The only 'when' implied is 'never, until you fix config', which is not tool-selection guidance.

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

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and the text does not contradict that, but it discloses nothing about the tool's actual behavior — no return shape, pagination, or auth flow for the tool. It describes the server's failed state, not the operation.

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 text is readable and front-loaded, but every sentence is about an environment failure and none earns its place as a tool definition. It is well-organized for an error message and inappropriate as a description.

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, read-only listing tool with no output schema, an agent still needs to know what gets listed. The description supplies none of that, leaving the definition unusable for tool selection.

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 there is nothing for the description to clarify; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No parameter-level information is missing or needed.

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 list_folders does. It is an MCP startup-failure message about a missing Feedly token, so an agent cannot tell that this tool lists folders, nor distinguish it from list_feeds or unread_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?

The only guidance is operational ('run feedly-mcp doctor', 'do not fetch the news another way'), which concerns fixing a local configuration problem rather than when to select this tool versus its siblings. No use context for the tool itself is given.

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

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

Read-only annotations are present and uncontradicted, and the description does disclose a real behavioral fact: the tool is unusable until FEEDLY_TOKEN is configured, and it names the paths checked. But it says nothing about what the tool actually does once working (what gets marked, whether the change is reversible), so the disclosure is incidental rather than useful tool 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 text is organized in a workable order (problem, remedy, escalate to doctor), but it spends every sentence on configuration and none on the tool itself, so nothing is front-loaded that helps an agent select or invoke it.

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 and no parameters, so very little description is strictly required, and it correctly signals the tool is dead. However, as a definition for mark_read it is effectively empty: a reader learns the server is broken but never what the tool is for.

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 schema has zero parameters at 100% coverage, which sets a baseline of 4. The description neither needs to nor does add parameter meaning, so this dimension is unburdened.

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 mark_read does. It is entirely a configuration-failure notice ('could not start: No Feedly token found'), so an agent cannot learn the tool's verb or resource, let alone distinguish it from get_articles, unread_counts, or search_feeds.

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 only guidance given is how to fix the environment and an instruction not to work around the failure. There is no statement of when to call mark_read versus any sibling tool, or what inputs select it.

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

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.

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.