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

With annotations empty, the description carries the full burden and does add one genuinely useful behavioral fact: 'Prompt discarded' warns the agent not to expect reasoning over its input. However, this largely duplicates the schema's per-parameter 'discarded' notes, and it never discloses that the tool returns the same static template regardless of input or that it has no side effects.

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 totaling seven words, with the core behavior front-loaded and the caveat second; every word earns its place. It teeters on under-specification, which keeps it from a 5.

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 an eight-parameter tool with zero annotations and no output schema, two sentences are thin. The description never explains why eight heterogeneous parameter types exist, what the returned template is for, or when to call this instead of simply proceeding, leaving selection among a large sibling set to guesswork.

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?

All eight parameters already carry descriptions in the schema (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check', 'JSON text to validate; discarded after the check'), so schema_description_coverage is 100% and the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond those 'discarded' notes and does not tell the agent which of the eight unrelated params to populate.

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 specifies a concrete deliverable ('a three-step thinking template') with a clear verb ('return'), and this output type distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are all domain-specific validators/checkers like browser-url-ok, validate-json, and normalize-url. It loses a point because it never says what the template contains or what purpose it serves once returned.

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 invoke this tool versus any of the 27 siblings, no named alternatives, and no context triggers. 'Prompt discarded' is a behavioral caveat rather than usage guidance, so an agent has little basis for deciding when this tool is appropriate.

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