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

With no annotations, the description must carry the burden of explaining side effects, but it only says 'Prompt discarded' and that some params are 'discarded after' checks. It does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, whether it performs network access, or what 'discarded' means for the output.

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 short but not well structured: 'Prompt discarded' is an unclear second sentence that adds confusion rather than useful information. The tool would benefit from a clearer explanation of the template and the role of inputs.

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 no output schema and no explanation of the template's content or format, the description leaves too much unspecified. The 9 optional parameters are not tied to any observable behavior, so an agent cannot predict what invoking this tool will do.

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 100% description coverage, the parameter descriptions are incoherent in the context of a 'thinking template' tool. Params like 'ref', 'city', and 'json' are described as discarded or used for unrelated checks, which does not tell the agent what values to provide or how they affect the returned template.

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 says it returns a 'three-step thinking template' but the phrase 'Prompt discarded' and the unrelated parameter list make the actual purpose unclear. It does not state what the template is for or how it relates to the tool name.

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 indication of when to use this tool instead of the many sibling tools such as validate-json, search-query-len, or normalize-url. The description gives no context for selecting this tool.

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