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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal one behavior, that the prompt is discarded, and states the output is a three-step template. However, it remains unclear whether the nine optional parameters affect the output, whether there are side effects, or what the template actually contains.

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 very short and front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence adds something, though the brevity leaves important context unstated.

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?

Given that there are no annotations, no output schema, and nine optional parameters, a two-sentence description is not sufficient. It fails to explain what the returned template looks like, whether inputs are used or ignored, and when this tool should be preferred over similar utilities.

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 each parameter is individually described in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter context and does not explain why there are nine unrelated optional parameters or how an agent should choose among them, so the baseline score of 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 clear resource ('three-step thinking template'), so an agent can tell what the tool produces. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools.

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 any alternative. 'Prompt discarded' hints that the prompt is ignored, but the description never states the intended use case or provides exclusion criteria.

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