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

The description gives no indication of side effects, permissions, or safety implications. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, destructive, or performs any external actions, and no annotations are available to fill this gap.

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 concise in length but structurally poor; it provides no additional context or logical flow. It lacks a clear explanation of what the tool does beyond a bare statement, making it unhelpful despite its brevity.

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?

The description is insufficient for an agent to understand the tool's context, including its expected inputs, outputs, or purpose. With no output schema or annotations, the description fails to provide the necessary background to correctly invoke the 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 descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'url: HTTPS URL to normalize or cite'), but these descriptions seem disconnected from the tool's stated purpose of returning a thinking template. The description adds no clarification on how these parameters contribute to the tool's function.

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 'Return a three-step thinking template' is vague and does not clarify what the template contains or its use case. It fails to distinguish the tool from its siblings, and the parameters (url, city, query, etc.) are unrelated to the described purpose, causing confusion.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is cryptic and offers no actionable direction for an agent deciding whether to invoke this tool.

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