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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: partial-retry semantics (only failed accounts), a no-duplicate guarantee (published accounts are never re-posted), asynchronous background execution, and a polling instruction. These are non-obvious behaviors an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Front-loads eligibility first, then behavior, then outcome retrieval, then rendering constraints. Four tight sentences with no filler; every clause carries operational information.

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, and the description compensates by explaining that results arrive asynchronously and where to read them, plus how the host renders the panel. An agent has enough to invoke it and handle the response 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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the single postId parameter is undocumented, but the description's repeated references to 'post' make the referent obvious. It adds no format, ID-type, or sourcing guidance beyond that implicit context.

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+resource ('Retry a ... post') and narrows scope with the exact eligible states (FAILED or PARTIALLY_PUBLISHED). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like publish_post, create_post, and update_post, which do not imply re-attempting a failed publish.

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 a precise precondition (only failed/partially published posts) and tells the agent how to obtain the outcome via get_post, which is effectively the follow-up step. It stops short of naming an explicit alternative or stating what to do when the post is not in a retryable state.

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