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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the prompt is discarded and that parameters are 'discarded after' checks, implying no persistent effects, but it doesn't clarify what the tool does with the inputs, whether it makes network calls, or what the output structure looks like.

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, but in this case brevity under-specifies rather than adds value. One sentence leaves the agent without enough information to decide on invocation.

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 and no output schema, the description is far too thin. The agent cannot tell what the 'three-step thinking template' is for, how inputs map to it, or what it returns. The note that the prompt is discarded leaves the tool's actual function nearly opaque.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all 9 parameters. The description adds almost nothing about the parameters, but baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 the tool 'Return a three-step thinking template' and that the prompt is discarded. This makes it unclear whether the tool actually does anything useful or is a stub. 'Return a three-step thinking template' names a deliverable but gives no indication of what the template contains or why an agent would call it.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus the 27 siblings. The description explicitly states the input prompt is discarded, which suggests the tool does not process the prompt, but it doesn't explain when an agent should invoke it or what problem it solves.

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