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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for side-effect disclosure. It implies that some inputs are discarded, but it does not explicitly state whether the tool is pure/read-only, what happens to all parameters, or whether any external resources are touched.

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 text is short and front-loaded with the primary verb, but the second sentence is a fragment and syntactically unrelated to the schema (there is no 'prompt' parameter), making it less effective than it could be.

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?

Given the tool's apparent simplicity, the description still omits essential context: what the three-step template looks like, whether the returned template is static or depends on inputs, and what 'Prompt discarded' actually means in practice.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The top-level description adds no additional parameter detail, but the schema's own 'discarded' notes give partial meaning; however, the mix of unrelated params and inconsistent discard notes keeps this at the baseline.

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 ('a three-step thinking template') but does not define what that template contains or when it applies. The added phrase 'Prompt discarded' introduces ambiguity about the tool's role, and no sibling differentiation is provided.

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 on when to use this tool versus any of the many sibling tools, no conditions, examples, or exclusions. The description only states the output and that a 'prompt' is discarded.

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