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 disclose the most important trait — that inputs are discarded and a fixed template is returned — which prevents an agent from expecting its question to be answered. However, it does not describe what the template contains, whether parameters affect output, or any side effects, so disclosure is thin but not misleading.

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 sentences with zero filler: the first states the function, the second the critical caveat. Every word earns its place and the key behavior is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is too thin. An agent cannot tell what the three-step template looks like, whether it should pass any parameters (all are optional and discarded), or what the response will contain. The schema covers parameter meanings, but the overall contract of the tool is unexplained.

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 the schema already documents all nine parameters, including their discarded-after-check behavior. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage baseline.

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?

"Return a three-step thinking template" states a specific verb and resource, and the discard caveat makes the behavior unambiguous. The sibling set is all validation/normalization/check tools (validate-json, file-path-ok, domain-shape), so this template-returning tool is clearly differentiated. It loses a point because the three-step template is never elaborated — what steps, for what 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?

The description gives no indication of when to call this tool versus any of the 28 siblings. It does not name alternatives, state prerequisites, or give conditions. The only hint, "Prompt discarded," is a behavioral caveat, not usage guidance.

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