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

Annotations already declare this a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, non-open-world call, so safety is covered. The description adds the useful disclosure that results include provider error details, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, or retention of attempt history.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the core purpose front-loaded before the debugging hint. 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 simple single-param read tool with full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and roughly what it returns. Missing only result shape/ordering details, which are minor here.

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?

Only one parameter (postId) with 0% schema description coverage; the phrase 'for a post' implicitly maps it to that parameter. Baseline for a single, self-evident identifier is mid-range – the description adds no format, ID-type, or scoping detail.

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 and resource ('List publish attempts for a post') and adds the salient content detail (provider errors). It doesn't explicitly contrast with near-siblings like get_post, list_posts, or retry_post, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'Use this to debug failed posts' gives a clear context for using it, but offers no when-not guidance and never mentions related tools such as retry_post or run_status that an agent might need instead.

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