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 does disclose that the prompt is discarded, but the parameters are not prompts, and the tool's actual behavior (returning a fixed template) is not explained. The descriptions of each parameter in the schema mention that they are 'discarded after the shape check,' which hints at some internal checks, but the description itself does not clarify what side effects or return values to expect.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded. However, the second sentence is cryptic and does not add clarity, and the overall brevity borders on under-specification rather than efficient communication.

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, this description is severely incomplete. It fails to explain what the three-step thinking template is, how it is structured, how the parameters relate to it, or what the agent should expect as a result. The absence of any behavioral detail makes it impossible for an agent to call this tool correctly and interpret the output.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; each parameter's schema description already states it is discarded after a check. The tool description's 'Prompt discarded' does not map to any parameter and does not enrich understanding of the parameters' roles.

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 'Return a three-step thinking template' which gives a verb and resource, but it is vague about what the template is or how it is used. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is confusing because there is no 'prompt' parameter in the schema, and it does not distinguish this tool from the many sibling tools that perform specific checks.

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 the alternatives. The description provides no context about the intended use case, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this tool over siblings like 'domain-shape' or 'validate-json'.

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