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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects and safety. It only mentions 'Prompt discarded' and some parameters being discarded, but does not clearly state whether the tool is read-only, side-effect-free, or how input data is handled.

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 avoids fluff, but the structure is abrupt. 'Prompt discarded' reads like an incomplete or dangling clause rather than a clear behavioral note.

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?

The tool has no output schema, yet the description does not describe the structure or content of the returned template. It also fails to explain how the numerous listed parameters affect the result, leaving the tool's overall contract incomplete.

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 every parameter has a schema description, the descriptions are disconnected from the stated purpose and often contradictory. Terms like 'discarded after the shape check', 'normalize or cite', 'public weather hint', and 'length check' do not explain how any parameter relates to returning a thinking 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 main clause 'Return a three-step thinking template' is a specific verb and resource, making the core purpose reasonably clear. However, the appended 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous and slightly muddies the intended behavior.

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 given about when to use this tool versus any alternative. The description does not state use cases, exclusions, or relationships to sibling tools.

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