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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false. The description adds valuable behavioral context by enumerating optional behaviors (editing content, narrowing platforms, rescheduling, publishing immediately) that go beyond the annotations. It does not, however, disclose detailed side effects like whether the original post is modified or a new attempt is created.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose and efficiently lists the optional modifications. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's behavior, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite the rich schema and annotations, the description omits critical usage requirements: it does not clarify that an identifier (id, postId, or scheduleId) is needed, nor does it describe the expected output or return value. Since there is no output schema, this information would help complete the picture. The description covers the main function but leaves these gaps.

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 100%, so all parameters are documented. The description provides a high-level summary mapping to parameters (text/mediaUrl for content, platforms for narrowing, scheduledAt for rescheduling, publishNow for immediate publishing), but adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 tool's purpose: 'Retry a failed scheduled post' with a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning optional actions like editing content, narrowing to failed platforms, rescheduling, or publishing immediately, which differentiates it from edit_scheduled_post or trigger_scheduled_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 phrase 'failed scheduled post' establishes clear context for when to use this tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it lacks the explicit when-not-to-use guidance that would earn a 5.

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