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

Annotations already supply Active, Idempotent, and ReadOnly flags, so the description only needs to add behavior beyond those. It adds one meaningful behavior: the prompt is discarded. However, it does not clarify the output format or whether the tool has side effects, which is notable because annotations mark ReadOnly as false and Idempotent as false.

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 two short sentences with no wasted words and the main deliverable is front-loaded. It is concise rather than minimal to the point of tautology, though the second sentence is a fragment and could be clearer.

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 eight optional parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the three-step template looks like, which parameters should be supplied, or what the agent should expect in the return value. The rich schema descriptions do not make up for this lack of overall context.

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 input schema describes all 8 parameters in detail, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The description's only contribution to parameter semantics is 'Prompt discarded,' which usefully clarifies that the prompt parameter is not used, but it adds no meaning for the other seven parameters.

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 and deliverable: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is not a tautology and the tool name matches. However, it does not define what the three steps are or differentiate this from sibling tools, so it is clear but not fully self-contained.

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 about when to call this tool versus any of the sibling tools. 'Prompt discarded' is a behavioral warning, not a usage policy or explicit selection condition. An agent has no information about prerequisites, expected inputs, or when not to use it.

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