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

Without annotations, the description carries full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It explicitly states that the prompt is discarded, informing the agent that input is ignored and the output is a fixed template. This is a key behavioral trait that goes beyond the tool's name and schema. It could also mention that all parameters are similarly ignored, but the schema fills that gap, so this is solid.

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 a single, tightly worded sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core purpose ('Return a three-step thinking template') and immediately follows with the essential behavior ('Prompt discarded.'). Every word 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 tool that simply returns a fixed template, the description covers the key fact: the output is a three-step thinking template. It also teases that the prompt is irrelevant, so an agent knows it can call the tool with empty arguments. No output schema exists, but the return value is stated. The only minor gap is not explicitly saying 'all arguments are optional', but the schema's optional fields and the description's discard note make this clear enough.

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 all seven parameters, each explicitly noting that the value is discarded after a check or entirely. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description's 'Prompt discarded.' adds a general note about input handling but does not enhance specific parameter understanding beyond what the schema already states.

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 action and output: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This clearly identifies the tool's function as a template provider, distinct from siblings like timezone or validate-json which process inputs. The added 'Prompt discarded.' further clarifies that it does not analyze input, removing ambiguity about its role.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool: whenever a three-step thinking template is needed. However, it offers no exclusions, no comparisons to alternatives, and no guidance on circumstances where another tool might be better. The usage context is inferred rather than explicit, earning a 3.

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