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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does usefully reveal that the prompt is discarded, but it does not clarify whether input parameters are ignored, whether validation happens, or what the returned template contains. Conflicting parameter descriptions in the schema (e.g., url suggested for normalization/citation) further muddy the behavior.

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?

At just two short sentences, the description is extremely concise and front-loaded with the primary action. Every word earns its place; however, the terseness borders on under-specification, which slightly limits its usefulness.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It fails to explain the purpose of the parameters, what the three-step template looks like, or when to call this tool relative to the large sibling set, leaving an agent with significant gaps in understanding.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning, but the input schema already provides 100% description coverage for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Prompt discarded' is generic and does not compensate for any schema gaps, but none exist.

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 action ('Return a three-step thinking template') and a resource, making the core purpose clear. However, it does not explain what the three steps are or how the nine input parameters relate to the function, and it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, so it stops short of a 5.

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 the many siblings, no mention of conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints at behavior but provides no direction for tool selection, leaving the agent with nothing to base a decision on.

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