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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says it returns a template and discards the prompt, but does not state whether it performs network calls, accesses files, or has side effects. The schema hints that parameters are 'discarded' or used for 'checks', but that information is in the schema, not the description. The description adds no behavioral context 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 one short sentence, which is concise but not appropriately sized given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations). It is under-specified rather than efficiently condensed. The single sentence does not convey enough information to justify its brevity.

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, the description is critically incomplete. It fails to explain what the three-step template is, how parameters affect the output, or what the tool actually does. An agent cannot correctly call or interpret this tool based on the provided description.

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 schema provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all 9 parameters, each indicating whether it is discarded or used for a check. Per the rubric, a high coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, but since the schema already documents them well, this is acceptable.

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 it returns a 'three-step thinking template' but gives no detail on what that template is or how it relates to the 9 input parameters. It does not distinguish this tool from any of its 27 siblings, and the phrase 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous about whether the input parameters are ignored. The purpose is only slightly more informative than the tool name, so it borders on tautology.

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 alternatives. The description does not mention any use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent has no basis to decide between this and tools like 'calc-eval' or 'normalize-url'.

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