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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses one meaningful behavior: 'Prompt discarded,' indicating the input prompt will not influence the output. It does not describe whether the returned template is static, whether all parameters are ignored, or what side effects might occur, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 wasted words. The primary action is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a relevant behavioral caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 simple template-returning tool, the description is adequate but not complete. It does not state whether arguments are required, whether all parameters are ignored, or what the three-step template actually looks like. Since the schema marks all parameters optional and covers their descriptions, an agent could likely call the tool with no arguments, but the description itself leaves that implicit.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents each parameter. The description adds essentially no parameter-level meaning beyond 'Prompt discarded,' which does not clarify how the nine optional parameters relate to the output. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It clearly states what the tool produces and avoids a tautology. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though none of the sibling names suggest a competing template-returning tool, so the clarity is strong but not maximally explicit.

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 phrase 'Prompt discarded' implies that this tool is not meant for prompt-dependent processing and that the output is a fixed template, giving some usage context. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it name any excluded use cases.

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