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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only mentions 'Prompt discarded' without detailing side effects, errors, or what happens with the input parameters. It does not reveal that the tool likely performs shape checks or validation, nor does it describe any output format beyond a vague 'template'.

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 brief, which is concise, but it lacks substance and fails to front-load key information. It is under-specified, leaving critical aspects unexplained, so it does not earn a higher score for effective conciseness.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotation support, this description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the template is for, how the parameters are used, or any success/failure behavior, making it nearly impossible for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter's purpose and that they are discarded. The tool description adds nothing beyond that, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic weight.

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'), but it doesn't explain the role of the nine parameters or how this tool relates to its many shape-checking siblings. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' adds confusion rather than clarity, making the tool's true purpose ambiguous.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or related tools, leaving the agent to guess when 'think-steps' is appropriate among the numerous sibling tools.

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