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

Annotations already flag non-read-only, destructive and non-idempotent behavior, but the description adds meaningful context beyond them: it will not re-send to already-successful or unrelated destinations, it fails on non-'failed' posts, and it requires reconnected accounts. The 'Free' note also discloses a cost trait no annotation covers. Return format is not described, which is the only gap.

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?

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the eligibility constraint and prerequisite. Each sentence carries information; only the trailing 'Free.' is terse to the point of being slightly clipped.

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 single-parameter action tool with no output schema, the description covers scope, eligibility, prerequisite state and cost. An agent has everything needed to decide whether and how to call it.

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?

Only one parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents postId as the social post UUID. The description reinforces that it must be a failed post, but adds no format or lookup guidance beyond the schema baseline.

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?

States a specific verb (re-dispatch) and resource (one failed post delivery) with an explicit scope constraint: only failed posts, and no re-sending to successful or unrelated destinations. This cleanly separates it from siblings like create_social_post, cancel_social_post and get_social_post.

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?

Gives clear preconditions — the post must be in 'failed' state and disconnected accounts must be reconnected first. It doesn't name alternatives (e.g., inspect status with get_social_post before retrying), but the when-to-use condition is unambiguous.

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