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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions 'Prompt discarded,' which hints that the input prompt is ignored, but it does not explain how the nine parameters are handled (e.g., whether they are validated, used, or ignored). The parameter descriptions in the schema suggest checks, but the tool description itself is silent on this, leaving ambiguity about side effects and processing.

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 short, which could be seen as concise, but it omits critical information. It is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The single sentence does not provide enough context for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the template looks like, how parameters affect the result, or what the return value contains. The 'Prompt discarded' line is ambiguous and fails to address the tool's overall behavior. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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 description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is documented. The tool description adds no meaning beyond that, merely stating the prompt is discarded. It does not clarify whether parameters are used or ignored, which would be valuable context. Thus, it meets the baseline for high coverage but does not exceed it.

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 a three-step thinking template') and a resource, but it does not elaborate on what the template contains or how it relates to the tool's name. It is clear enough to infer the tool's basic purpose but lacks detail to distinguish it from other template-like tools.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many siblings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or alternative tools. The description only states what it does, not when it is appropriate.

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