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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the prompt is discarded and a template is returned, hinting at a read-only, stateless operation, but it does not clarify that all parameters are ignored, that the template is fixed, or what the template contains. This leaves key behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 compact and front-loaded, stating the purpose in the first sentence and adding a behavioral note in the second. It is concise, but 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous and could be phrased more clearly, preventing a perfect score.

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 the simple stated purpose, the tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain how parameters relate to the template, whether any arguments are needed, or what the returned template looks like, leaving an agent uncertain about correct invocation.

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%, so the input schema already documents every parameter meaning. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the 'prompt discarded' note, which does not meaningfully enhance parameter understanding. Baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('Return') and the resource ('a three-step thinking template'), making the primary purpose apparent. However, it does not explain what the template is for or how it relates to the tool's name, so it falls short of fully distinguishing the use case.

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 provided on when to use this tool or when to prefer another. The only context is 'Prompt discarded,' which addresses behavior rather than usage context, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.

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