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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses that only FAILED platforms are re-published, that succeeded platforms are never reposted, that execution is asynchronous, that the agent must poll get_post, and that there is a max of 3 retries per platform. That is the kind of operational detail annotations cannot express.

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?

Every sentence earns its place: scope, eligibility, platform-level behavior, async semantics, polling target, retry cap, and sibling contrast. The key constraint (same post, no duplicate) is front-loaded rather than buried.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description still tells the agent what to expect after the call (status becomes `published`, `published_urls` gains the live URL) and how to observe it via get_post. For a one-parameter async mutation tool, nothing an agent needs to invoke and follow up correctly is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents `id` fully; the description adds no format, ID-source, or validation detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the parameter burden.

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 and resource ('Retry the failed platforms of a failed or partially failed post') and immediately scopes it ('on the same post, no duplicate created'). It explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling publish_post ('publish_post refuses failed posts; this is the tool for them'), so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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 explicit triggering conditions (status `failed` or `warning`) plus what happens in each case, names the alternative (publish_post) and its limitation, and states the escalation path after retries are exhausted ('after that, recreate the post'). Both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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