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

The description discloses the key behavioral trait that the incoming prompt is ignored ('Prompt discarded'), signaling stateless, input-independent behavior. With no annotations provided, this is meaningful transparency for a simple template-returning tool, though it does not describe any output formatting details.

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, front-loaded with the action and resource, with no filler. The 'Prompt discarded' clause earns its place by preventing an agent from expecting input-dependent behavior.

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 zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential calling contract: the inputs do not matter and the result is a fixed three-step thinking template. It is slightly thin on when to use it and what the three steps are, but the tool is simple enough that an agent can invoke it correctly.

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 each parameter is already documented and the baseline is 3. The description adds the cross-cutting fact that the prompt is discarded, but it says nothing about how individual parameters relate to the returned template; the schema must carry that weight.

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 names a specific verb ('Return') and a concrete resource ('a three-step thinking template'), and adds that the prompt is discarded. This clearly distinguishes think-steps from the sibling URL/shape/validation tools, none of which return a thinking template.

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 on when to use this tool versus any sibling. The description only states what it returns; it does not mention use cases, prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to infer applicability from the tool name alone.

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