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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Prompt discarded' explicitly reveals a non-obvious behavior: the tool returns a fixed result and does not use the provided inputs, despite having nine optional parameters. This prevents the agent from expecting prompt-dependent output. There are no destructive side effects or external effects to disclose.

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 terse sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and a behavioral caveat in the second sentence. Every word earns its place; there is no redundant phrasing or filler.

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, fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description communicates the essential contract: a fixed three-step template is returned and the prompt is ignored. It could name the three steps or explicitly note that an empty call is sufficient, but the schema already marks every parameter as optional and discarded. Overall this is adequate for such a simple tool.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all nine parameters, and each parameter description already states that the value is discarded after a check. The tool description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the schema carries the burden. Baseline 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 concrete verb ('Return') and a concrete resource ('a three-step thinking template'), so the core purpose is identifiable. 'Prompt discarded' further clarifies that the tool ignores input, which helps distinguish it from the sibling utility tools that analyze inputs. It could be more specific about what the template contains, but the purpose is not vague or tautological.

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 about when to use this tool versus any of the siblings, no stated use case, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer appropriateness solely from the name and the fact that a template is returned. This is minimal guidance.

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