A tool with fewer features that is harder to use is by definition an inferior tool.

That's only your opinion, not an objective truth, and I only partially agree with it. Having the most features is not as important as having just the right set of features, and there are anti-features to consider as well. Feature creep can actually impact the usability of a tool, so these two criteria are sometimes in contradiction.

Ease of use is subjective and depends on the user, because users' needs, ability, tastes, and concerns differ. Of course, I don't think anyone deliberately chooses a tool because it is hard to use.

I don't agree that freeness is purely an ideological concern. I don't think a tool that works against me, or imposes arbitrary restrictions on me is a good tool by any measure. A good tool doesn't enshittify, or spy on its user, or refuse to work for arbitrary reasons. If a tool doesn't work and you are legally not allowed to fix it (as in the printer which inspired the movement in the 1980s), it's not a good tool. If a tool punishes you for something you didn't even do (as BitKeeper did to the Linux developers) it's not a good tool, even if it has the right features.

I don't tell you that your opinion is wrong, only that I don't agree with it. We are told our concerns are invalid and don't matter.