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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. 'Prompt discarded' usefully signals that the tool returns a fixed template rather than processing input meaningfully, but it doesn't disclose whether all parameters are ignored, whether there are side effects, or what happens to the provided values beyond the schema hints.

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 two short sentences with no filler and the main action is front-loaded. However, 'Prompt discarded' is slightly ambiguous—it could mean the user's prompt is ignored, or that a separate input field is discarded—keeping this from a perfect score.

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 is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain the return value and invocation context more fully. Saying only 'Return a three-step thinking template' leaves the template's contents undefined and gives no guidance on why an agent would choose this tool over any sibling.

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%, and each parameter already has its own description including discard behavior where relevant. The tool description adds only the global 'Prompt discarded' note, which clarifies intent but doesn't provide additional per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 an explicit verb ('Return') and names the deliverable ('a three-step thinking template'), so an agent can tell what the tool does. It doesn't explicitly contrast it with siblings, but none of the listed siblings appears to duplicate this purpose.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list contains many validation and lookup tools, but the description never says 'use this when...' or mentions any alternative, leaving invocation context entirely implicit.

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