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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a key behavior: the prompt is discarded, so the returned template is not customized. However, it does not explain what the three-step template actually contains, whether the optional parameters are honored, or what side effects, if any, exist. This is a moderate level of transparency.

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 the main action front-loaded. There is no fluff. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is terse but earns its place by warning that input will be ignored. It could be slightly more explicit, but it is well within appropriate conciseness.

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?

Despite a rich input schema and no output schema or annotations, the description is minimal. It does not explain what the three-step template is, how the optional parameters relate to it, or what the caller should expect in return. An agent has enough to identify the tool but not enough to confidently predict the output or side effects.

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 optional parameter has a useful description (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description itself adds little beyond 'Prompt discarded,' but the schema already documents the parameters. The baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling validation/fetch tools. 'Prompt discarded' adds the important clarification that this is not a processing tool, though 'thinking template' remains somewhat abstract.

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?

No guidance is given about when to call this tool rather than a sibling. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' implies the tool is appropriate for a fixed template, but it does not state expected use cases, exclusions, or alternatives. An agent must infer the selection criteria.

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