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

The phrase 'Prompt discarded' discloses that input is ignored, which is a behavioral trait not captured by annotations (none provided). However, it does not describe side effects, return format, or other operational details, leaving significant burden unmet.

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—two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the core function, though the brevity borders on under-specification rather than optimal conciseness.

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 simple template-generating tool, the description provides the essential function, but it omits what the template looks like and when to use it. Given the large sibling set, more context on selection criteria would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, with each of the 9 optional parameters explicitly described as 'discarded' or 'checked' in the schema itself. The description adds no additional meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 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 states a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('three-step thinking template'), making the tool's purpose clear. It is distinct from sibling tools like calc-eval or timezone, which perform concrete operations, though 'three-step' is left undefined.

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 versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer its applicability from the name alone.

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