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

Annotations already signal mutation with readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, and the description adds valuable behavioral context: retry touches only failed targets, ignores already-sent ones, never double-posts, and only works for posts published through this service. This aligns with the annotations and makes the side-effect profile more precise.

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?

Three short sentences, with the core action first and each sentence adding a distinct constraint: failed-only scope, no double-posting, no-failure result, and applicability limit. There is no redundant or filler wording.

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?

Given one parameter, rich schema documentation, and safety annotations, the description covers the important call-time behaviors: scope, idempotency, no-failure result, and applicability. It doesn't spell out the success return shape, but no output schema is present and the no-failure signal is already disclosed.

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?

The input schema covers the single id parameter 100%, including accepted forms (publish id, channel post id, or link) and a connected-account caveat. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so it stays at the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

The description uses the specific verb 'retry' with a clear resource: 'targets that failed on a publish.' It distinguishes itself from a full publish by noting already-delivered targets are left alone and that it never double-posts, making it unambiguous relative to siblings like publish or delete_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?

The description clearly states when to use it by scoping to 'targets that failed on a publish' and by describing the no-op condition ('If nothing failed you get nothing_to_retry'). It also notes the limitation 'Only applies to posts published through us.' It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to decide when to call it.

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