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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It does say the prompt is discarded, which implies the tool does not process the caller's input, but the statement is ambiguous because no 'prompt' parameter exists in the schema. It also omits any detail about side effects, output format, or behavior with the listed parameters.

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?

The description is only two sentences and is front-loaded with the main action, so it is compact. However, the second sentence ('Prompt discarded.') does not earn its place: it introduces an entity absent from the schema, creating more confusion than clarity while saving no meaningful space.

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 tool with nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to state whether any parameters are required, whether the returned template varies by input, or what the three-step template looks like. An agent cannot confidently determine the correct invocation from this definition alone.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters themselves are individually documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond saying a prompt is discarded, and since 'prompt' is not one of the nine parameters, this does not help an agent map inputs to behavior. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already handles the parameter semantics.

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 first sentence states a concrete action ('Return a three-step thinking template'), which is more than a tautology and distinguishes it from the validation/hint siblings. However, it never defines what the template contains or which of the nine input parameters shape it, and 'Prompt discarded' references a prompt that is absent from the input schema, leaving the actual scope unclear.

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 about when to call think-steps versus any sibling tool, no prerequisites, and no explanation of whether the 9 optional parameters are needed. 'Prompt discarded' hints that the tool ignores input, but it does not tell an agent when this tool is the right choice or when a different tool such as validate-json or normalize-url should be used.

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