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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It does disclose one important behavior: the prompt is discarded rather than used to customize the template. However, it does not clarify whether any of the nine parameters affect the result or describe side effects, leaving only partial 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, front-loaded with the main purpose and followed by a critical caveat. Every word earns its place; there is no padding or repetition.

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 schema provides good coverage of the nine optional parameters, but the description does not explain what the returned template contains, whether to pass any arguments, or how parameters marked as non-discarded relate to the template. This is a serviceable description, but material ambiguity remains.

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 input schema already documents every parameter, including that many are discarded after a shape check. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline but earns no extra credit.

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 clearly states a concrete action and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is distinct from the many validation/utility sibling tools, but it does not explicitly name or differentiate itself from a sibling, 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 about when to use this tool instead of another, no exclusions, and no comment on whether arguments should be supplied. 'Prompt discarded' is a caution, not a usage policy; the agent is left to infer when this tool is the right choice.

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