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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses one meaningful trait—the prompt is discarded—and implicitly promises a fixed template output. But it does not state whether all inputs are ignored, whether the template varies by arguments, or what errors/limits exist, so transparency is partial.

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?

Two short declarative sentences carry the whole definition, with the main verb and object first. The second sentence earns its place by warning that input is ignored; there is no filler or repetition.

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 trivial, stateless template tool, the definition covers the core return value and discard behavior. But without any output schema or richer description, an agent cannot know what the three steps are, whether any argument is required, or what the tool is actually for in a workflow, so completeness is adequate but not strong.

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?

Every schema property has a description, giving high schema coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning; the 'discarded' message just echoes the schema's own 'discarded after...' notes. No compensation is needed, but none is provided either.

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 first sentence names the exact deliverable ('a three-step thinking template') and the action ('return'), making the tool's purpose recognizable and distinct from sibling fetch/validation/utility tools. The aside 'Prompt discarded' slightly muddies the purpose by implying the tool ignores user input, but the core purpose is clear.

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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative selection guidance is provided. The description never mentions sibling tools such as citation, calc-eval, or validate-json, so an agent has no basis for choosing think-steps over them. 'Prompt discarded' hints that the prompt isn't processed, but doesn't explain when that behavior is desirable.

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