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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Prompt discarded' discloses that the prompt does not influence the output, which is a useful behavioral trait. It does not clarify whether the nine input parameters are ignored or affect the template, and it says nothing about side effects or return format.

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 with no filler. The core output is front-loaded, and 'Prompt discarded' is a compact behavioral qualifier.

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 nine optional parameters and no annotations or output schema, yet the description never explains whether arguments are needed, which parameters are relevant, or why they are discarded. An agent cannot confidently choose the correct invocation or predict what the template will contain.

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 baseline is 3; each parameter has a schema description. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and the schema descriptions read like unrelated fragments (weather hints, URL checks) rather than explaining how the parameters relate to this tool.

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 action and output: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is clear about the resource produced. However, it does not explain what the template contains or differentiate from sibling tools, so it falls 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?

'Prompt discarded' implies the tool is a fixed template generator rather than a prompt processor, giving some usage context. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over sibling tools or when not to use it, so the guidance is only implied.

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