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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It does mention that the prompt is discarded, which is a useful detail, but it omits side effects, return format, errors, and whether all parameters are ignored.

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 very short and front-loaded, with no filler. It loses a point because the dangling 'Prompt discarded' clause makes the structure slightly confusing.

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 and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. An agent cannot tell what the three-step thinking template looks like, how to invoke the tool meaningfully, or what to expect in the response.

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%, and each parameter description explicitly says it is discarded after some check, which is an unusual but clear semantic. The descriptions do not go beyond the schema, but they sufficiently indicate that inputs do not affect the returned 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 states a clear action and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' However, it does not explain what the template contains or how it relates to the tool's name, and the clause 'Prompt discarded' adds ambiguity about whether the tool processes any input.

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 instead of any of the 27 siblings. There is no mention of alternatives, conditions, or concrete use cases.

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