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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Prompt discarded' clearly signals that the user prompt will not be used, and the schema fields reinforce that most inputs are discarded or only shape-checked. It does not discuss side effects or errors, but the main surprising behavior is disclosed.

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 primary action front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence adds the critical discard behavior without redundancy.

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?

Given nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate for a simple template-returning tool but leaves ambiguity about whether any argument should be passed and what the returned template contains. The schema's parameter descriptions compensate partially, not fully.

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 all nine parameters are already individually documented. The description adds only the tool-level 'Prompt discarded' note and does not clarify how the heterogeneous parameters relate to the returned template, which keeps this at the baseline score.

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 first sentence states a specific verb and deliverable: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This makes the core action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, though none is obviously analogous.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no alternative tool is named. 'Prompt discarded' is a caution about behavior, not a selection rule, so an agent has little basis for choosing this tool over its 26 siblings.

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