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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'Prompt discarded,' which suggests the tool ignores input, but this is contradicted by the parameter descriptions that imply each parameter has a specific purpose (e.g., 'normalize or cite', 'validate', 'check'). The description doesn't clarify whether parameters are actually used or ignored, nor does it mention any side effects, return format, or whether the template is fixed. This lack of clarity is a transparency gap.

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—one short sentence. That is efficient in length, but it is underspecified. It front-loads the main action ('Return a three-step thinking template') but omits any elaboration on the template or the role of parameters. Concise yes, but it lacks necessary structure to be effective; it reads more like a stub than a complete definition.

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 very incomplete. It doesn't explain what the three-step template is, how the parameters relate to it (if at all), or what the agent should expect as a response. The 'Prompt discarded' hint is ambiguous and doesn't help the agent understand the tool's behavior. For a tool with this many parameters, much more context is needed.

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 coverage is 100% because each parameter has a description. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. The parameter descriptions in the schema are detailed individually, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. However, the tool description doesn't reconcile those parameter descriptions with the 'Prompt discarded' statement, so it doesn't add semantic value beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is clear as a purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools, and the phrase 'Prompt discarded' is confusing—it doesn't clarify whether the parameters are used at all or if the tool simply ignores all input. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity and context.

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 versus other tools. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or alternative tools. The 'Prompt discarded' line implies the tool doesn't use the prompt, but it doesn't explain when an agent should invoke this tool instead of something else. Usage context is entirely absent.

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