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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a non-obvious trait: 'Prompt discarded.' However, it does not say whether any of the nine schema parameters are used or ignored, nor what the returned template looks like or whether the operation has side effects, so transparency is partial.

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, front-loaded with the main action and followed by a behavioral warning. There is no filler or redundant content, though the terseness does contribute to ambiguity in other dimensions.

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 nine optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no usage context, this two-sentence description is not sufficient. An agent cannot confidently determine which parameter to pass, whether parameters affect the output, or what the 'three-step thinking template' actually returns.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. The description never connects the nine parameters to the template, but the schema already documents each parameter individually, so the description is not required to repeat that information.

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 concrete action and output: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' However, it does not explain what the template actually contains or how it relates to the nine unrelated optional parameters, leaving the purpose somewhat vague. It also does not differentiate this tool from the many sibling shape-check and hint 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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus any sibling tool, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned. 'Prompt discarded' hints that the tool will not process the prompt, but it does not clarify when an agent should choose this tool or what input, if any, is appropriate.

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