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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It says 'Prompt discarded,' implying the input is ignored, but the schema descriptions say parameters are 'discarded after shape check' or 'discarded after the call,' suggesting some validation happens. The description doesn't clarify the actual behavior—whether the tool always returns the same template or performs validation—leaving the agent uncertain about side effects or input handling.

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 sentence, which is concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. It has no wasted words, but it omits essential behavioral details. It earns its place as a statement of intent, though it could be improved with more context without becoming verbose.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It doesn't explain what the three-step template looks like, whether any parameters actually affect the output, or what 'Prompt discarded' means in practice. An agent cannot confidently predict the tool's behavior or decide when to invoke it based solely on this description.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described in the schema. The description adds no parameter-specific information and even misleads by saying 'Prompt discarded' while the schema shows parameters are used for shape checks. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema already documents the parameters; the description doesn't add value but doesn't harm beyond ambiguity.

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 enough to distinguish it from siblings like calc-eval or timezone. However, it doesn't elaborate on the template's content or purpose, leaving some ambiguity about why it exists.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. The agent is left to infer its use case from the name and description alone.

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