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

With no annotations and a vague description, the tool's side effects and behavior are opaque. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints at input processing but does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, ignores all parameters, or has any other effects. No safety or persistence details are provided.

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 (two sentences), which is concise, but it lacks structure. There is no organization of information, and the abrupt mention of 'Prompt discarded' is placed without context, making the text feel disjointed rather than well-structured.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain the meaning or usage of the parameters, the format of the returned template, or any error conditions. The agent would be unable to invoke this tool confidently or interpret its result.

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?

Although the schema has descriptions for all 9 parameters, they are clearly mismatched with the tool's purpose. For example, 'url' is described as 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'city' as 'City name for a public weather hint'—these have no relation to returning a thinking template. The description does not explain how any parameter affects the output, and the 'discarded' notes suggest they are irrelevant, leaving the agent unable to determine which inputs matter.

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' which conveys a basic purpose, but the appended 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous and conflicts with the expectations set by the parameter schema, which includes many unrelated fields. The purpose is not clearly or consistently articulated.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool or how it relates to sibling tools. No context is given about typical scenarios, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent without direction on tool selection.

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