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

With no annotations present, the description carries the burden. 'Prompt discarded' is a useful behavioral disclosure, indicating the output is a fixed template independent of input. However, it is ambiguous whether 'prompt' means the entire user input or a separate prompt parameter, and it does not explicitly state that all listed parameters are ignored. The schema's per-parameter 'discarded' notes are consistent, but the description could be more explicit.

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, each earning its place. The core purpose is stated first, followed by the critical discarding behavior. No wasted words.

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?

The large input schema (8 parameters) with varied intended uses (shape checks, weather hints, normalization) is not reconciled with the description. An agent will be confused why these parameters exist if the prompt is simply discarded. The description should clarify that all input parameters are ignored and the template is always the same, but this is missing. The return value is vaguely described as a 'three-step thinking template' with no format detail.

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?

All parameters have descriptions in the schema, so schema coverage is high (100%). The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 applies because the schema already documents each parameter adequately.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is specific and distinguishes the tool from the sibling shape-check and URL utilities. The added 'Prompt discarded' clarifies that the tool does not process the prompt, making the purpose even more precise.

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 about when to use this tool versus the many siblings. It does not say 'use this when you need a thinking template' or mention any alternatives. The only context is the discarding behavior, which is not a usage guideline.

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