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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It usefully reveals that the prompt is discarded, signaling that inputs won't drive actual reasoning. However, it does not clarify that all arguments are ignored, whether the template is static, or what side effects (if any) exist.

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 the main action front-loaded and no filler. 'Prompt discarded' is meaningful but slightly cryptic, which prevents a perfect score.

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 a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nine optional parameters, the description is too sparse. It does not describe the contents of the three-step template, whether all parameters are ignored, or how this tool relates to sibling validation tools.

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% and each parameter already has an individual description, including discard behavior. The tool description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 concrete action and deliverable: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is enough to identify what the tool produces, though it does not explicitly differentiate it from sibling tools or explain why 'prompt' is discarded.

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 think-steps versus the many sibling tools, no exclusions, and no situational context. The only usable hint is the tool name and the word 'template,' so usage must be inferred.

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