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

The description discloses a key behavioral trait: 'Prompt discarded.' Combined with the per-parameter schema notes saying each value is 'discarded after the shape check,' an agent can infer that inputs are not used for the final output and there are no side effects. However, with no annotations, the description carries the burden and still does not explicitly state that the returned template is fixed or that all parameters are safely ignored.

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 extremely short: two sentences with the core purpose front-loaded. 'Prompt discarded' is economical and conveys an important behavior. Slightly more clarity about what the template actually contains would be beneficial, but nothing in the description is wasted.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description should explain what the returned template looks like or at least state that it is fixed and can be produced with no arguments. Instead, it only says 'three-step thinking template' and 'Prompt discarded.' The tool has nine optional parameters, and while the schema shows they are optional, the description never clarifies that invoking with no parameters is the intended or sufficient usage.

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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage for all nine parameters, so the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning. The schema descriptions, while noting each parameter is discarded, also give plausible semantic hints like 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite,' which could mildly confuse an agent about whether the tool performs those actions.

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 action and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from the sibling utilities, none of which promise a thinking template. However, the phrase 'thinking template' is not expanded, and 'Prompt discarded' adds a slightly ambiguous note about the tool's relationship to the user prompt.

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 description gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus any alternative. It neither names sibling tools nor explains conditions under which a three-step thinking template would be appropriate. The only implicit signal is 'Prompt discarded,' which suggests the prompt should not be relied on, but that is not usage guidance.

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