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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses that the prompt is discarded, indicating a stateless, side-effect-free call. It does not detail whether the returned template is fixed, but the discard statement is meaningful transparency.

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 with no filler; the core action is front-loaded and the behavioral caveat ('Prompt discarded') is supplied without elaboration. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, yet the description does not explain what the three steps are, whether parameters are required, or why there are many different discarded parameters. This leaves an agent uncertain about invocation details and expected return.

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?

The input schema already describes every parameter and repeatedly notes that values are discarded after checks. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so it earns the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 names a concrete action ('Return') and a specific deliverable ('three-step thinking template'), which distinguishes it from the sibling validation/hint tools. The appended 'Prompt discarded' clarifies that the prompt content is not part of the output.

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 statement about when to call this tool or when to prefer a sibling. The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or alternatives, so an agent has to infer the intended use from the name alone.

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