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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses one trait: 'Prompt discarded,' which tells the agent that arbitrary prompts are ignored. But it does not reveal whether the tool has side effects, what happens to the schema's many parameters, or whether the template is static or input-dependent.

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 text is extremely concise and front-loaded: the core deliverable is stated first, and 'Prompt discarded' is the second sentence. There is no filler. The terseness is arguably excessive given the tool's complexity, but as a concise structure it succeeds.

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 seven parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It omits the template structure, the role of each parameter, and what 'Prompt discarded' means operationally. An agent selecting or invoking this tool would still have to guess how inputs map to the returned template.

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 provides descriptions for each property, including notes like 'discarded after the shape check,' so schema coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter semantics and, notably, does not explain why seven unrelated parameters exist for a tool that returns a template.

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 deliverable: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' That is a clear verb+resource, and no sibling tool appears to offer this same output. However, it does not explain what the template contains or how the many input parameters relate to it, preventing a perfect clarity score.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes shape-checkers and validators, but the description never mentions them or provides a selection criterion. The only implied use case is 'when you need a thinking template,' which is not actionable.

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