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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded, indicating input is ignored. However, it does not explain the nature of the template, whether it is deterministic, or any side effects (though none are expected). This is partial transparency.

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 a single sentence with no wasted words, but it is under-specified. It is concise but omits essential information about the template's format or usage, so it is not appropriately sized for the tool's needs.

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 (all effectively ignored) and no output schema, the description should explain what the returned template looks like and when it is useful. It provides neither, leaving an agent to guess the template's content and applicability. This is a significant 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?

Schema coverage is 100% with each parameter individually described, mostly noting it is discarded after a shape check. The tool description adds no new meaning; it only repeats the discard notion. The schema already carries the parameter semantics, so the description adds no extra value.

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 the action 'Return a three-step thinking template' with a clear resource (a template). It distinguishes from siblings by indicating a template generation role, though it does not describe the template's contents or steps, leaving some ambiguity.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., calc-eval, web-fetch). The description does not mention alternatives, conditions, or scenarios where this tool is preferred.

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