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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It states 'Prompt discarded,' but the input schema lists nine parameters each with specific purposes (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), implying they are used for validation. This directly contradicts the schema's implications, making the behavior misleading.

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 terse, but for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema, this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. The two sentences waste no words, but they fail to provide essential information, making the structure inadequate.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nine parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the template contains, how the parameters relate to the template, or what the return format is. An agent cannot use this tool correctly 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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no value to parameter understanding; it actively misleads by claiming the prompt is discarded, which contradicts the detailed parameter descriptions. Instead of clarifying, it creates confusion about whether any parameter matters.

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 the action ('Return') and the object ('a three-step thinking template'), which is distinct from all sibling tools. However, the phrase 'Prompt discarded' introduces ambiguity about whether the input is used at all, slightly undermining clarity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The description provides zero context for an agent to decide when this tool is appropriate.

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