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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the behavioral burden. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' does disclose that the incoming prompt will not be used, which is useful. It does not, however, clarify whether any of the nine schema parameters are honored or what side effects (none expected) 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?

The description is two short sentences with the main action front-loaded. It contains no filler, though 'Prompt discarded' is cryptic 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?

With no output schema, no annotations, nine parameters, and no explanation of the template structure, the definition is under-specified. An agent cannot tell what the returned template looks like or whether it needs to pass any of the parameters, despite schema hints that most are discarded.

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%, and each parameter already has a description, many explicitly noting it is discarded. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 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 first sentence identifies a specific action and deliverable: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This clearly states what the tool produces, and the name think-steps aligns. However, it does not distinguish the tool from any sibling or describe what the template contains.

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 call this tool instead of one of the many sibling tools. 'Prompt discarded' hints that the input is ignored, but it does not explain use cases or prerequisites. An agent is left to infer when a three-step thinking template is wanted.

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