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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly says 'Prompt discarded,' which is a key non-obvious behavior: the tool ignores the user input and returns a template. However, it does not explicitly state that all nine structured parameters are ignored, leaving some ambiguity about the discard scope.

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 concise, containing only two short clauses: the output type and the input-discarding behavior. Every word earns its place, and there is no filler or redundant information. It is well-structured and front-loaded for quick comprehension.

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 does not explain what the three-step thinking template actually contains or how an agent should use it, which is essential for deciding whether to call this tool. It also does not clarify that all structured input parameters are ignored, and with no output schema or annotations, the agent has insufficient context. The heavy reliance on the input schema's parameter descriptions makes the definition incomplete.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Prompt discarded' provides a global hint that parameters are irrelevant, but the per-parameter meanings are already fully described in the schema with 'discarded after...' remarks. Thus the description adds little semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 this tool from the validation and fetching siblings, as it is not a checker or fetcher. The 'Prompt discarded' clause reinforces that it is a fixed-output tool, making the core purpose unmistakable.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description never mentions conditions, exclusions, or alternative sibling tools. An agent is left to infer the appropriate context from the name and vague wording.

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