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

The description does disclose one important behavior: 'Prompt discarded,' indicating the supplied prompt is not used in producing the template. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does not fully spell out that all parameters are effectively ignored or what the returned template contains. Still, the core non-obvious behavior is at least mentioned.

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 with the key idea front-loaded: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' There is no filler, and 'Prompt discarded' earns its place by flagging the non-obvious input behavior. The size is appropriate for the tool's simple purpose.

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?

Even with all parameters described in the schema, the description leaves open what a 'three-step thinking template' looks like and whether any argument is needed to obtain it. Required parameters are 0 and there is no output schema, so the agent cannot infer the return shape from structured data. This is under-specified for a tool with 9 input properties and no annotations.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning; at most it warns that the prompt is discarded, which is not represented as a schema property. Therefore the description does not improve on 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 states a clear action and deliverable: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This distinguishes it from the sibling validator/calculator tools, which check URLs, paths, or formats rather than producing a template. The phrase 'three-step thinking template' is still a bit underspecified, so it does not earn a perfect 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?

No guidance is given for when to call this tool instead of a sibling; there are no alternatives, exclusions, or conditions mentioned. 'Prompt discarded' is the only usage hint, and it tells the agent that prompt content will not matter, not when the tool should be selected. This falls below the minimum viable guidance.

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