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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It mentions that the prompt is discarded and that a template is returned, but it does not disclose output format, side effects, or how the accepted parameters are handled beyond vague 'discarded' hints in the schema.

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 and contains no redundant filler. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is cryptic, but the overall structure is compact and direct.

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?

The description is far too incomplete for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. It does not explain what the template contains, how parameters should be used, what output to expect, or when this tool is the right choice.

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 input schema provides individual descriptions for all nine parameters, so coverage is high and a baseline of 3 is appropriate. However, the tool description itself adds no clarity about how these parameters relate to the 'three-step thinking template' output.

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 specific action—'Return a three-step thinking template'—so the core purpose is identifiable. However, the phrase 'Prompt discarded' is confusing and does not clarify how the tool relates to its nine parameters or to sibling tools.

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 about when to use this tool, what input should be provided, or when a sibling tool would be more appropriate. The description gives no usage context at all.

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