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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Prompt discarded' does disclose that the user prompt is ignored, which is a meaningful trait, but it mostly repeats the per-parameter 'discarded' notes in the schema and does not describe the template output or side effects.

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 front-load the action ('Return...') and then give the key caveat. There is no filler, redundancy, or unnecessary detail.

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 trivial fixed-template tool, the description is mostly adequate, but with no output schema it only vaguely identifies the return value as a 'three-step thinking template' and never explicitly states that all arguments are irrelevant. An agent can invoke it, but not with full confidence about the exact output.

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 baseline is 3. The main description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents; all nine parameters are individually described as optional or discarded.

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 concrete action and output: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools that fetch, validate, or inspect data. However, it does not explicitly contrast it with any sibling or clarify exactly why a caller would choose this tool.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. 'Prompt discarded' is a behavioral caveat rather than a routing instruction, so an agent gets no help deciding between this and the many sibling tools.

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