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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded and several inputs are 'discarded after' checks, but it does not describe the return format, error behavior, side effects, or why the nine parameters are accepted.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence contributes, and there is no filler. It loses a point because 'Prompt discarded' is a fragment and could be clearer as a full sentence.

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?

With nine parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and no explanation of the tool's role, the two-sentence description is far from complete. It does not describe what the three-step template looks like, how it should be used, or what happens with the inputs.

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, but most parameter descriptions are unhelpful or confusing, e.g., 'discarded after the shape check.' Some descriptions label the value type ('HTTPS URL', 'IANA timezone name'), but none explain the actual role of the parameter in producing the returned template or why it exists.

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 names a concrete action and object: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is not a tautology and is somewhat clear. However, the phrase 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous and does not explain what the template contains or why it should be used, and it doesn't distinguish the tool from the many sibling validation tools.

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 for when to call this tool versus any sibling tool. The only behavioral note is 'Prompt discarded,' which warns against relying on the prompt but does not explain use cases, prerequisites, or alternatives.

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