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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does explicitly say 'Prompt discarded' and the parameter descriptions repeatedly note that values are discarded or not used, which communicates a side-effect-free operation. However, it does not explicitly say there are no other effects, no I/O, or no external access beyond what the parameter descriptions imply.

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 and front-loaded: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' followed by the key qualifier 'Prompt discarded.' There is no filler and the essential information appears first. It is appropriately concise, though slightly terse for such a large parameter surface.

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 that returns a fixed template and discards its inputs, the description is reasonably complete: it names the outcome and clarifies that the prompt is not used. Still, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not fully explain what the three-step template contains or what the agent should expect in the return value. This leaves a meaningful but minor gap.

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 already documents all nine parameters, and each parameter description says it is discarded after some shape check. The main description's 'Prompt discarded' adds no substantial information beyond what the schema already communicates. With full schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 and output: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This clearly identifies what the tool produces and distinguishes it from the sibling tools, which are mostly URL checks, hints, and validators. It is less than 5 only because it does not describe what the three steps or template actually contain.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool or when to prefer a sibling tool instead. It says 'Prompt discarded' but does not explain the intended use case, alternatives, or exclusions. An agent is left to infer from the name that it should be used for thinking steps, which is weak guidance.

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