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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It does reveal that the 'prompt' is discarded, but it does not explain what happens to the nine input parameters or whether any side effects occur. It also does not describe the return value beyond calling it a 'template.' This is minimal transparency and leaves major behavioral questions unanswered.

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 short, only two sentences, and states the core action first. It is efficient with no filler words. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, though for a tool that simply returns a template it may be appropriately terse.

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 has nine optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain why the parameters exist, what the template looks like, or when an agent should invoke this tool. An agent cannot confidently use it correctly based on the provided information.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters and already indicate that many are 'discarded' or only checked for shape. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Since the schema already carries the semantic load, the baseline of 3 applies; the description does not improve parameter understanding.

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 a specific action: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' However, the appended 'Prompt discarded' clause is confusing and suggests the input is irrelevant, which muddies what the tool actually does with its parameters. It does not name any sibling tool to differentiate from, so an agent may not know when this is the right choice.

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 alternatives. The description gives no context about typical use cases, prerequisites, or situations where it should be avoided. An agent is left to guess whether this is a general-purpose template or something tied to a specific workflow.

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