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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the agent knows this is a non-idempotent write against an external system. The description contributes only the 'failed' precondition; it does not say whether a retry re-queues, publishes immediately, or can duplicate an already-sent post – the main hazard for a non-idempotent tool.

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, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero filler. It is efficient, though arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.

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 non-idempotent mutation with no output schema and a fully undocumented parameter, the description leaves key questions open: what state qualifies as 'failed', what happens on success, and whether the retry can loop or duplicate. Annotations cover safety signalling but not operational behavior.

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 0% and the single parameter postId has no description in either the schema or the description text. It is inferable from the name, but with one required undocumented parameter the description should clarify what identifier it expects (post ID vs attempt ID vs platform media ID).

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 gives a specific verb ('Retry') and resource ('post') with a stated precondition ('failed'), so the action is unambiguous. It does not, however, differentiate itself from neighbors such as post_attempts or publish_draft, which an agent might also consider for a stuck 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?

'Retry a failed post' implies the trigger condition but never states when to use this versus publish_draft, post_attempts, or get_post. No exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing are given.

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