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

The annotations already mark this as non-read-only and destructive, so the description does not need to restate those traits. It adds useful behavioral context by noting the failed-status requirement and clarifying that the tool triggers a publishing retry rather than a generic update.

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?

The description is minimal, clear, and front-loads the core action in the first sentence. The additional sentence earns its place by stating the only-supported status, with no redundant or filler content.

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 a single required parameter, full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations that already disclose side effects, the description is complete enough for effective use. The missing detail about all-failed retries is not essential because sibling names communicate that distinction.

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 already fully documents post_id with 100% description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states the operation: retry publishing a failed post. It also narrows the scope to posts with 'failed' status, which distinguishes this tool from similar publishing/retry-related siblings like posts_publish_now and posts_retry_all_failed.

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 gives a clear precondition: only use this tool on posts with 'failed' status. It does not explicitly name an alternative for retrying all failed posts, but the scope is specific enough to guide basic tool selection.

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