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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: the prompt is discarded. However, it does not clarify that all nine input parameters are ignored or that the tool returns a fixed template regardless of input, which is essential behavior for safe invocation.

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 redundant wording. The second sentence adds a behavioral note, though it is ambiguous and could be clearer.

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?

Given the confusing schema with nine optional parameters and no required fields, the description should explicitly state that all parameters are ignored and that the tool can be called with no arguments. It does not provide enough context to invoke the tool 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?

Although each parameter has a description, those descriptions are misleading in the context of this tool. For example, 'url' says 'normalize or cite' and 'city' says 'weather hint', but the tool actually returns a thinking template and discards input; the descriptions do not reflect real parameter behavior.

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 specific action, 'Return', and a clear resource, 'three-step thinking template'. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools that check URLs, calculate, or fetch statuses.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool instead of a sibling. 'Prompt discarded' hints that input is ignored but does not explain circumstances or alternatives.

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