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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it does disclose a meaningful behavioral trait: 'Prompt discarded' signals that the input is ignored rather than processed. However, it stops short of stating that all parameters are ignored and that no side effects or external calls occur.

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 tight: two short sentences, with the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Every word adds information, especially the discarded-prompt caveat.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, two sentences leave too much unsaid. It does not define what a three-step thinking template contains, why multiple unrelated parameters are accepted, or what happens if no parameters are supplied.

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%, so the baseline applies: the input schema already documents each parameter and explicitly says each is discarded after a shape check. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond the vague 'Prompt discarded' note.

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 and object: return a three-step thinking template, which is clear enough. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings like agent-tool-index or search-query-len, and the term 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous.

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 statement of when to use this tool versus any alternative, no exclusions, and no prerequisite context. The intended use is only implied by the name and the word 'template'. 'Prompt discarded' says what happens, not when to call it.

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