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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose one key trait: 'Prompt discarded' tells the agent the input prompt will not influence the result. However, it does not address the seven schema parameters or whether they are ignored or used, which is a meaningful transparency gap.

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 extremely compact—two short sentences—with the primary purpose stated first and the behavioral qualifier second. Every word contributes: the first sentence gives the action and resource, the second states a necessary constraint. This is well-structured for an agent scanning tool definitions.

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?

Despite the clean purpose statement, the tool exposes seven optional parameters with no explanation of their relationship to the returned template. An agent cannot tell whether passing url, json, or city changes the template or is pointless, and no output schema is given. The missing 'all inputs are ignored' disclosure is material for a tool with this many parameters.

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 description itself says nothing about parameters. Since the input schema already provides descriptions for all seven properties, the baseline is 3, and the description neither adds nor weakens parameter semantics. The 'Prompt discarded' sentence does not clarify how the parameters relate to the tool's behavior.

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 clearly distinguishes it from the sibling utilities such as validate-json, web-fetch, and others. The second sentence adds the clarifying constraint that the prompt does not shape the output.

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?

The function statement implies when to call it, namely when a three-step thinking template is needed. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or how it compares to sibling tools. Usage guidance is only implicit, with no exclusions or alternatives mentioned.

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