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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only adds 'Prompt discarded', which is sparse and not anchored to any real parameter. It fails to mention that all 9 parameters are ignored, that the output is a fixed template, or what side effects (if any) occur, leaving the agent in the dark about the tool's actual behavior.

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, with the main action front-loaded. However, the second sentence is cryptic and adds ambiguity rather than clarity. While it is concise, the lack of usable structure makes it under-specified for a tool with 9 parameters and no other documentation.

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 annotations, no output schema, and no description of the returned template, the definition is severely incomplete. The agent cannot tell whether the parameters are required, how they influence the output, or what form the three-step template takes. It is far below the minimum for safe and correct invocation.

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?

The schema has 100% description coverage, and each param has explicit 'discarded' semantics, so the schema already provides most of the needed parameter context. The tool description itself does not add any additional meaning about how parameters are validated or which ones matter, but no penalty needed because the schema covers the details.

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?

Description states a specific verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' However, the meaning is vague because 'three-step thinking template' is not detailed, and 'Prompt discarded' introduces a cryptic element without explaining what 'prompt' means or why no prompt parameter exists. It does not clearly differentiate itself from other tools that might return static templates.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention typical use cases, conditions, exclusions, or alternative sibling tools. 'Prompt discarded' is a behavioral statement, not a usage guideline.

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