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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It says 'Prompt discarded,' which hints the tool ignores input, but it does not explain that the output is identical regardless of parameters, nor does it describe the actual template structure. The parameter schema descriptions mention 'discarded' but the main description is silent on this, leaving the agent to infer 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, but the second sentence 'Prompt discarded' is cryptic and not self-explanatory. The structure is not front-loaded with the most critical information (what the template is, when to use it). Conciseness is not a substitute for completeness; this is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It fails to explain what the three-step thinking template contains, how the parameters affect the output (if at all), or any expected response format. An agent cannot reliably call this tool without additional context.

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 covers 100% of the 9 parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The main description adds no parameter-level information, but the schema already documents each parameter's role (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The description does not need to repeat schema details, so it neither helps nor hurts beyond 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This goes beyond a tautology and clearly indicates the tool produces a fixed template. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools or explain what the template is for, so it is not a 5.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description is purely functional and does not help an agent decide between this and the many sibling tools.

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