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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the prompt is discarded, but does not state that all parameters are effectively ignored or what happens with the input. The schema hints at discarding, but the description itself is silent on the actual execution 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 very short (two sentences) with no filler, which is structurally concise. However, it's under-specified rather than effectively concise—it omits critical information while being brief, so it doesn't earn its place fully.

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?

With 9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and many sibling tools, the description is far too minimal. It does not explain the purpose of the parameters, what the template contains, or why an agent would call this tool. It is incomplete for reliable selection and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter having a description (mostly 'discarded after...'). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline. However, it doesn't clarify why the parameters exist if they are all discarded or what the template depends on, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Return a three-step thinking template') with a defined resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools by focusing on a template rather than a check or fetch operation, though it doesn't explicitly compare to any sibling.

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 vs the many siblings. The description gives no context about use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent cannot determine when 'think-steps' would be appropriate.

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