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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Prompt discarded', which hints that inputs are ignored, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what happens to the parameters, or what the returned template looks like. This is minimal transparency and leaves critical safety and side-effect 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 only one sentence, which is efficient, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. It is not appropriately sized because it omits essential information that would fit in a few more sentences. The brevity is not a virtue here.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what the three-step template is, how the parameters influence the result, what the return value looks like, or any error conditions. An agent cannot call this tool correctly based on the description alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The schema already explains each parameter and notes it is discarded after a shape check. The description adds no additional meaning about parameter roles, formats, or relationships, so it does not exceed 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 states 'Return a three-step thinking template' – a specific verb and resource, but it never explains what the template contains or how it relates to the nine parameters. It is not a tautology, but it is too vague to distinguish from siblings like calc-eval or validate-json, and the phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds confusion rather than clarity.

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, when not to, or what alternatives exist. The description does not mention any conditions or context for invocation, leaving the agent to guess whether this is a fallback, a utility, or a meta-tool.

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