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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It explicitly reveals the most important behavioral trait: the prompt is discarded, so the tool does not perform real reasoning or use the caller's instructions. It does not describe the exact template contents, but the critical behavior is clear.

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 no filler: the deliverable is stated first and the key caveat second. Every word earns its place and the description is easy to parse quickly.

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?

The description plus schema is enough to make a safe no-argument call and understand that the prompt is ignored. However, it does not spell out what the three-step template actually contains or when to prefer this tool over the many sibling tools, and there is no output schema to fill that gap.

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 schema already documents every parameter well. The description adds global context by saying the prompt is discarded, but it does not add per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Return') and a specific resource ('a three-step thinking template'), then adds the key caveat that the prompt is discarded. This makes the tool's role immediately distinct from the many checking and fetching siblings, even though no sibling is named.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. 'Prompt discarded' hints that this is not a real reasoning tool, but it never explicitly says to use it only for generic template requests or that actual analysis should be handled by another tool.

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