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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose one meaningful behavior: the prompt is discarded, implying calls with a prompt are wasteful. It also frames the tool as a pure return/generator with no side-effect language. However, it does not say whether any of the listed parameters are actually consumed or what the returned template contains, 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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the purpose is front-loaded and 'Prompt discarded' is a high-value behavioral caveat. This is appropriately sized for a very simple tool.

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?

The description is minimally complete for a no-input generator: an agent can infer that an empty call returns a template. But there is no output schema and no description of the template's structure, and the reason for 9 optional schema parameters is unexplained at the tool level. Given that complexity, this is a clear gap but not a fatal one.

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% and every parameter is optional and individually described in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond 'Prompt discarded', which weakly suggests all parameters may be ignored.

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 names a concrete verb ('Return') and a concrete resource ('a three-step thinking template'), so the core purpose is clear. It adds 'Prompt discarded' to show this is not a prompt-processing or LLM call. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings, but no sibling tool appears to offer a thinking template, so it is adequately distinguishable.

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 invoke this tool versus any alternative, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the name 'think-steps' and the generic output statement. This is below minimum viable guidance for a 9-parameter tool.

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