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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Prompt discarded' – the tool ignores the input prompt, and several schema entries echo that parameters are discarded after checks. This adds value beyond the absent annotations and prevents the agent from expecting data processing. However, it remains ambiguous whether all parameters are ignored or only the natural-language prompt, and no side effects or return format are disclosed.

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 concise: two short sentences with no filler, and the core action is front-loaded. However, 'Prompt discarded' is cryptic and may need elaboration to be useful, reducing the clarity that conciseness should provide.

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?

With no output schema and nine optional, apparently discarded parameters, the description leaves too much unanswered: what exactly is the returned template, is it static, should the caller pass any parameter, and are there side effects? An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool correctly based solely on the description.

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 provides per-parameter descriptions with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the vague 'Prompt discarded,' which does not clarify the role of the nine parameters. The schema already carries the heavy lifting for parameter meaning.

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 clear action: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it differentiates the tool from the sibling data-validation tools. However, 'three-step thinking template' is underspecified – it does not explain what the steps are or why an agent would request it.

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 alternatives. 'Prompt discarded' hints that the tool ignores input, but it never explicitly says 'use this when you need a fixed reasoning scaffold' or 'do not use for real computation.' The nine optional parameters are not explained in the description, leaving the agent without a clear call pattern.

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