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

With no annotations present, the description carries the transparency burden, and it does disclose the key side-effect-like trait: the prompt is discarded. This addresses privacy and statelessness concerns and goes beyond what the schema alone would reveal. It stops short of explicitly saying all supplied values are ignored, but the schema field descriptions reinforce the discard behavior.

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 definition is two terse sentences with no filler, one for the return value and one for the discard behavior. It front-loads the main purpose and keeps the salient transparency note right behind it.

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?

For a stateless template-return tool the description is mostly adequate, but the seven-parameter schema makes it unclear whether any parameter affects the returned template or whether all are decoys; 'Prompt discarded' is narrower than 'all inputs ignored'. An explicit 'call with no meaningful arguments' note or an example would remove the remaining uncertainty, especially since there is no output schema to clarify the template.

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 input schema has rich, 100% coverage descriptions for every parameter individually, so the description need not add parameter-level detail. The description contributes only a generic discard signal, not syntax or format guidance; the schema already carries that load.

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 deliverable: it returns a three-step thinking template, and it adds the important behavioral qualifier that the prompt is discarded. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, but no sibling offers an identical template-return behavior, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to call this tool versus any alternative; the only implied context is the tool's name and the fact that it returns a template. No exclusions, prerequisites, or fallback conditions are mentioned, so the burden is left entirely to the caller.

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