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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses only that a 'prompt' is discarded, but omits side effects, the output format, and whether any of the URL/host/path parameters cause network or filesystem access.

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 only two sentences, but 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous and arguably wastes the second sentence on an unexplained behavior. The structure is acceptable but not exemplary.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must stand alone. It does not explain the template's contents, the return type, parameter relevance, or any constraints; an agent has almost no context to invoke this correctly.

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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the individual parameter descriptions are inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose and look like copied snippets from unrelated tools. The tool description adds no unifying explanation of how ref, city, feed, json, path, etc. relate to a thinking template.

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 names an action and object ('Return a three-step thinking template') but never defines what a 'thinking template' is. The sentence 'Prompt discarded' further muddles the purpose, especially since no prompt parameter exists and the schema contains nine unrelated-looking parameters.

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 for when to use this tool or how it differs from the many sibling utilities (e.g., normalize-url, validate-json, fetch-status). There is no alternative mentioned or condition for selection.

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