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

The description discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is a key behavioral trait, but it does not clarify why 9 parameters exist or how they are handled beyond the schema's own 'discarded' notes. Without annotations, this is minimal but not contradictory.

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 extremely concise with a single sentence plus a short note. It front-loads the core purpose, though it could benefit from a bit more detail about the template without becoming verbose.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is too terse. It does not explain why the parameters exist if the prompt is discarded, nor what the returned template looks like. An agent would be uncertain about the tool's actual behavior beyond the basic statement.

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 has a descriptive comment. The description adds no extra meaning about parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies; it neither helps nor hurts.

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 the action ('Return a three-step thinking template') with a specific resource, but 'three-step thinking template' is vague and not explained. It distinguishes from siblings only by being the only template-returning tool, but lacks detail on 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description gives no context, use cases, or conditions, leaving the agent to infer when a 'thinking template' is needed.

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