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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal that the prompt is discarded, which is a genuine behavioral trait. However, it does not explain whether the seven input parameters are also ignored, what side effects (if any) exist, or why the tool accepts so many unrelated fields. The disclosure is honest but incomplete.

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 very short and front-loaded with the primary action. 'Prompt discarded' is a useful second sentence with no wasted words. It could be considered slightly cryptic about the overall purpose, but as conciseness it is strong.

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 seven heterogeneous parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too sparse. An agent cannot tell why such different inputs are accepted, whether they affect the returned template, or how this tool relates to sibling tools. The short description leaves important context missing.

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 detailed descriptions for every parameter, including whether each value is discarded. The description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and since schema coverage is effectively 100%, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Return') and a clear object ('a three-step thinking template'). It is not tautological and the phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds clarity about behavior, but it does not differentiate from the many sibling tools that also handle inputs like URLs, JSON, or weather hints.

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 about when to use this tool versus any sibling tool, no explicit context, and no exclusions. The description only says what it does, not when an agent should choose it over alternatives like normalize-url or validate-json.

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