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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure burden, but it only says 'Prompt discarded.' It does not say that all nine optional parameters are ignored, whether the output is static, or what the template contains; some schema descriptions even imply input is used.

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 the main action front-loaded and no filler. Slightly ambiguous phrasing ('Prompt discarded') prevents a 5, but it is appropriately concise.

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 no annotations, no output schema, nine optional parameters, and 28 siblings, this description is too thin: it omits when to use it, what the three-step template looks like, whether arguments are accepted or ignored, and the return format.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is individually documented and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning and fails to clarify whether any parameter affects the returned template, leaving the nine optional fields disconnected from the tool's purpose.

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 names a concrete deliverable ('three-step thinking template') with a clear verb ('Return'), so an agent knows what the tool produces. It does not differentiate from any sibling tools or explain what the template is for, so it misses the top level.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling utilities, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. 'Prompt discarded' hints that the tool is independent of input, but it does not state a use case.

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