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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It does disclose a key behavior: the prompt is discarded rather than influencing the output. However, it does not clarify whether the many optional inputs are accessed, whether the tool is read-only, or what exactly the returned template contains beyond 'three-step.'

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 very short and front-loaded with the main action. 'Prompt discarded' is useful but slightly ambiguous because there is no explicit 'prompt' parameter in the schema, which costs a point.

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 zero required parameters that returns a fixed template, the core behavior is mostly covered. Still, the description leaves unclear why nine optional parameters exist and whether any of them can shape the returned template, which an agent would need to choose and call it confidently.

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 already has a semantic description in the schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, but full schema coverage makes that acceptable.

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 verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is not a tautology and clearly distinguishes the tool's output from validation or lookup siblings, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with any sibling.

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 this tool versus alternatives, no mention of context that would make it appropriate, and no exclusions. The note 'Prompt discarded' is behavioral rather than selection guidance.

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