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

'Prompt discarded' is a meaningful behavioral disclosure: it tells the agent that the content will not be used or echoed, which supports a no-side-effect understanding. This goes beyond the input schema and gives safety-relevant context. Some details are still underspecified, but the fixed-output design keeps the behavioral surface small.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the result and followed by the caveat. No filler words; every sentence earns its place.

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 simple fixed-output tool, this is nearly complete: it states the return value and the discard behavior. It could be stronger by explicitly saying no arguments are required or that all parameters are ignored, but the optional schema and repeated 'discarded' language make that inferable.

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 schema already documents all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3 even without extra description. The description says the prompt is discarded but does not explicitly state that all structured parameters are ignored, which could leave schema hints like 'URL to normalize or cite' looking misleading. It adds little per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a concrete behavior: it returns a fixed three-step thinking template, and 'Prompt discarded' adds a clear scoping constraint. It is distinguishable from the sibling shape/URL/weather lookup tools by its explicit output. It does not name an alternative, but the function is unique enough that this is not a major gap.

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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The agent must infer from the name and description that this is for generating a thinking template, and no alternative or exclusion is mentioned. For a tool among many siblings, that is a notable gap.

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