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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden, but it only hints at behavior via 'Prompt discarded,' suggesting input may be ignored. It does not disclose side effects, output format, error behavior, or any constraints.

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 at two short sentences, with no redundant wording. It front-loads the primary purpose and uses the second sentence for a behavioral note.

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 there is no output schema, the description should clarify what the returned template contains and how the nine optional parameters affect it, but it does not. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds ambiguity rather than resolving how inputs are used.

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 description itself adds no parameter semantics, but the schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies. The individual parameter descriptions do provide some meaning, even if the top-level description does not.

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 clearly identifies the tool's action ('Return') and object ('a three-step thinking template'), making its primary function evident. However, 'thinking template' is somewhat generic and does not differentiate it from possible similar template-returning tools.

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 about when to use this tool over any alternative, nor any context for when it is appropriate. The description only states what it returns, not when to invoke it.

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