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

Annotations already communicate that this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the 'retry on failed platforms' semantic but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as partial-failure handling, idempotency, or side effects. With annotations present, this is adequate but not rich.

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 tightly written sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the parameter source hint is included without unnecessary detail.

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 two-parameter tool with full schema coverage, an output schema, and annotations, the description covers the essential workflow and parameter sourcing. It is slightly light on operation outcomes, but the output schema and annotations compensate, making it sufficiently complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by telling the agent that platformIds should come from list_post_results, which is important provenance information beyond the schema's generic 'Failed platform IDs to retry.'

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 states a specific action, 'Retry publishing on platforms that failed,' targeting a clear resource. It differentiates itself from siblings like publish_draft and create_post by emphasizing failed platforms, so an agent can identify when this tool applies.

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 clear context: use this tool for platforms that previously failed, and it even tells the agent where to get the required platform IDs ('Get platform IDs from list_post_results'). It does not explicitly list alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the workflow context is strong enough for correct selection.

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