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

The description does disclose one meaningful behavior: 'Prompt discarded,' which signals that the prompt is not used. However, with no annotations and a fairly large input schema, it leaves unclear whether any parameters are actually consumed, whether the output is fixed, or what side effects exist.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler; the core action is front-loaded. It is appropriately concise for a simple constant-return tool, though brevity comes at the cost of missing contextual details.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema, while the input schema has eight parameters. The description does not explain whether any input is required, how to invoke the tool correctly, or what the three-step template actually contains. 'Prompt discarded' helps but is insufficient.

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 provides descriptions for every parameter, so coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The top-level description adds no parameter meaning and the phrase 'Prompt discarded' creates ambiguity about whether the listed parameters are truly used or ignored.

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') and a concrete resource ('three-step thinking template'), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explain what the three steps are or explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings, but it 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 sibling tool, no alternatives listed, and no exclusions. The only usage clue is implied by the phrase 'three-step thinking template,' which is not enough.

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