Discussing the latter part of this, which critiques the paper on search.bioPreprint. I have no vested interest in any of the tools or services discussed.
Seems to me there are some valid points in what you’re saying, but the later part of your arguement conflates the tool they are discussing with the paper that discusses it—peer review is about the paper, not the underlying tool being discussed, so suggesting the tool should be changed (e.g., adding sort-by-date) before the paper is accepted is mixing up responsibilities. If the tool has a major flaw, would be good for this to be acknowledged as a limitation in the paper, but it’s not the responsibility of a publication/peer review process to directly take on revisions to tools being discussed, even if the authors of the paper are the authors of the tool. :)