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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Prompt discarded' is a genuinely useful transparency signal — it tells the agent all 9 parameters are throwaway. However, it stops there: no effect, no side-effect statement, no return-format caveat. A 3 credits the one meaningful disclosure it does make.

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?

Two short sentences that put the purpose first and the discard caveat second. Zero wasted words, and the key behavioral fact (input ignored) is front-loaded. This is exemplary brevity.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description explains nothing about what the returned template contains, how to interpret it, or whether it's safe/repeatable. For an agent the result is essentially opaque — it can call the tool but cannot reason about the outcome. Two sentences are not enough for a tool this bare.

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%, so the baseline is 3. Each parameter's schema description already explains that its value is 'discarded after the check.' The tool-level 'Prompt discarded' sentence reinforces this but adds no meaning beyond what the structured schema conveys, so it stays at the baseline.

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 never defines what that template is or what it's for. 'Think-steps' and 'three-step thinking template' are near-tautologies, and nothing distinguishes this from the 27 sibling utility tools that also probe inputs (search-query-len, validate-json, domain-shape).

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 only contextual hint is 'Prompt discarded,' which says the input is ignored but gives no guidance on when to call this versus any sibling. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing. An agent has no way to know this is a debugging probe rather than a substantive tool.

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