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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded, but does not explain that the nine parameters are also effectively ignored (beyond a shape/length check) and that the output is identical regardless of input values. The schema notes 'discarded after...' for several parameters, but the description does not clarify this behavior, potentially misleading the agent into thinking inputs affect the template.

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 (one sentence), but this is under-specification rather than appropriate conciseness. It lacks critical details about the template and parameter handling. While it is front-loaded with the core action, the brevity comes at the expense of essential context, making it ineffective.

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 woefully incomplete. It does not explain what the three-step template contains, what the parameters are for, how the input is used, or what the return value looks like. An agent has no way to format a call or interpret the result correctly.

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 tool description adds no meaning about parameters. The schema entries are inconsistent (e.g., 'url' implies normalization/citation, 'city' implies a weather hint, but the tool is supposed to return a static template). The description does not resolve these contradictions, so an agent cannot determine whether providing parameters is useful or redundant.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It is distinct from siblings in that it yields a static template rather than performing a data operation. However, it does not describe what the three steps are, leaving ambiguity about the actual output. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds a hint that input is ignored, but the purpose remains somewhat vague.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of eligibility conditions, when it should be preferred, or any exclusions. The description does not help an agent decide to call this tool over any other, leaving the decision to inference from the name.

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