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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded, which signals no hidden dependence on input, and the input schema additionally marks many parameters as discarded. However, it does not describe side effects, what the template looks like, or whether any input has an effect at all.

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 two short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the discard warning earns its place because it prevents an agent from expecting statefulness or a natural-language prompt effect.

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 tool has no output schema and the description omits what the returned three-step template actually contains. The input schema suggests varied purposes (normalization, weather hints, JSON validation, file paths), but the description says the prompt is discarded, creating a confusing picture. An agent would not know expected output or why certain parameters exist.

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 covers all seven parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3 even though the tool description itself adds no parameter meaning. The schema descriptions do provide semantics like 'discarded after the shape check' and 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' but this is schema coverage, not description-added value.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is clear and separable from the many shape-check and URL-normalization siblings. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from any sibling tool, and the note 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous about what 'prompt' refers to relative to the input parameters.

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. The description gives no context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only usage-like hint is 'Prompt discarded,' which is a behavioral warning rather than a when-to-use instruction.

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