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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Prompt discarded,' which is ambiguous and does not mention that all nine parameters are validated for shape and then discarded, as the schema descriptions indicate. The description does not state that the tool returns a static template regardless of input, nor does it explain side effects or safety. This is a significant gap.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise, but it is under-specified and does not convey essential information. It is not structured to front-load the most critical details; it omits the purpose of the parameters and the exact nature of the template.

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 tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not describe the three-step template, its content, or how to use it. It also does not explain the validation behavior. An agent cannot reliably decide when and how to invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions stating each is 'discarded after the shape check.' The tool description adds no parameter-level information, but the baseline is 3 given 100% coverage. However, the description fails to explain why these parameters exist for a thinking-template tool, leaving the relationship unclear.

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 ('Return a three-step thinking template') but is vague about what this template is for and how it relates to the tool's name. It does not differentiate from sibling tools like citation or calc-eval, which are concrete operations. The mention of 'Prompt discarded' is confusing and does not clarify the purpose.

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 use this tool versus any sibling. No conditions, prerequisites, or alternatives are mentioned. An agent has no idea why it would pick think-steps over any other tool.

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