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, which is a noteworthy behavior, but it never explains the side effects of the parameter checks (e.g., what triggers validation, whether errors are raised, or what the template looks like). No information is given about reversibility, side effects, or the nature of 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 extremely concise, using only two short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded. There is no verbosity or redundant phrasing. However, the brevity edges toward under-specification, but since conciseness is about efficient wording, it earns a 4.

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?

For a tool with nine optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is grossly inadequate. It doesn't explain what the 'three-step thinking template' contains, how parameters affect it, or what the expected output format is. An agent cannot reliably call this tool 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?

All nine parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds nothing beyond the schema's own claims that parameters are 'discarded after the shape check.' The descriptions are repetitive and don't clarify how each parameter influences the template, so the added value is minimal.

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 action ('Return a three-step thinking template') but it fails to explain how the nine input parameters relate to that output, and it doesn't differentiate the tool from siblings like geo-hint or calc-eval. The purpose is only partially clear because the input handling is ambiguous—whether the template depends on the input or is static.

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 versus the alternatives. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints that input may be irrelevant, but it doesn't state a use case, prerequisites, or conditions under which this tool is preferred. An agent would have to guess based on the name alone.

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