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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Prompt discarded' is a useful disclosure that the input will not influence the result. But it does not clarify whether any of the eight parameters are actually used, and several schema parameter descriptions imply actions like normalizing, validating, or checking, which conflicts with the 'discarded' framing.

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 entire description is two short sentences with no wasted words. The core purpose is front-loaded first, and the key behavioral note comes second, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 eight parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is too thin. It does not explain why such a broad set of parameters exists, which parameter (if any) should be passed, or what the three-step template looks like; the action-oriented parameter descriptions actively undermine the 'discarded' claim.

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?

The input schema already documents all eight parameters with individual descriptions, so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The description itself adds little parameter meaning; 'Prompt discarded' actually makes the role of these parameters more ambiguous rather than clearer.

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 clearly states a concrete action and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like validate-json, normalize-url, or geo-hint, even though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 usage is implied: an agent would call this when a thinking template is wanted. However, there is no explicit guidance about when not to use it, whether arguments are required, or how it relates to the many other tools in the catalog.

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