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

The annotations flag openWorldHint=true, meaning this re-triggers an external publish action, and the description says nothing about duplicate-publish risk, error behavior on non-failed posts, or whether the prior attempt's state is reset. With destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, the description should at least note the external side effect; it adds almost nothing beyond the name.

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?

One short sentence with no filler and the key qualifier ('previously failed') front-loaded. Nothing to trim.

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?

For a mutation tool with a 0%-documented identifier, an external side effect, and no output schema, the description leaves out too much — param meaning, failure/error semantics, and what a successful retry returns or changes.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the single 'id' parameter, but it never says whether it is the post ID or a retry-job ID. An agent has to guess which identifier to pass.

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 (retry) and resource (publishing a post) with a qualifying condition ('previously failed'), which separates it from create_post or update_post. It does not name a sibling explicitly, but the action is distinct enough for an agent to pick it.

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?

Implies the precondition that the post previously failed, but never says what to do otherwise — e.g., whether creating a new post is the fallback when no prior failure exists. No exclusion or alternative routing is given.

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