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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded and that the tool returns a fixed template, which avoids implying computation. However, it does not state whether all nine input parameters are ignored or merely discarded after validation, nor does it mention any side effects or data handling.

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 core action and followed by a critical caveat. Every word earns its place, with no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, so the description must fully specify behavior, but it does not explain what the three-step template contains or how the nine optional parameters relate to the tool. 'Prompt discarded' hints that inputs are irrelevant, yet the description never explicitly says all arguments are ignored, leaving uncertainty.

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?

All nine parameters have descriptions in the schema, so the schema already provides parameter meaning. The tool description adds nothing about parameters beyond 'Prompt discarded,' but the schema carries the load, so the 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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and names a clear resource, 'a three-step thinking template,' so an agent can tell roughly what the tool does. It also stands apart from the sibling tools, which are mostly URL/shape/status validators, though the exact nature of the template is left underspecified.

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?

'Prompt discarded' clearly signals that this is not a prompt-processing or reasoning tool, providing useful context about when to invoke it. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the intended usage is reasonably clear from the description.

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