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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose all behavioral traits. It only says 'Prompt discarded' and each parameter description notes it is 'discarded' after some check. This is cryptic and does not explain side effects, side effects, requirements, or what the returned template actually is. The agent cannot predict behavior beyond the literal statement.

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 brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. It lacks any information that would help an agent, and the single sentence does not earn its place because it raises more questions than it answers.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is grossly incomplete. The agent has no idea what the 'three-step thinking template' contains, what the output format is, or why the parameters are present. It cannot make an informed decision to call this tool.

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%, so a baseline of 3 could be expected, but the parameter descriptions are nearly useless: they all say the value is 'discarded' after a check. The tool description adds no additional meaning about how parameters influence the output. Since the parameters are all optional and discarded, the semantics are unclear—why would an agent provide them at all?

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 'Return' and resource 'three-step thinking template', so it is not a tautology. However, it does not explain what the template is, what steps it contains, or how the parameters relate to it. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is confusing and does not clarify the tool's actual function. This fails to distinguish it from the many 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 on when to use this tool versus any of the 28 siblings. No alternatives are mentioned, no conditions are stated, and no exclusions are given. The only hint, 'Prompt discarded', suggests the tool ignores input but does not tell the agent why or when it would be useful.

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