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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior fully, but it only says 'Prompt discarded.' This directly conflicts with the schema's parameter descriptions (e.g., 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite' and 'JSON text to validate'), which imply the parameters are used. The tool's actual behavior is opaque and contradictory, so transparency is critically lacking.

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 short, which is concise, but it omits essential structure. It does not front-load the purpose relative to the parameters, nor does it explain the template's role. It reads as under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 the tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the three-step template is, how inputs are used (if at all), or what the return value looks like. An agent has no way to correctly invoke this tool or interpret its results.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds no useful parameter meaning. Worse, it states 'Prompt discarded' while the schema describes parameters as being used for checks or normalization, creating confusion. The description does not clarify how or whether parameters are consumed, so it fails to add value and actually misleads.

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 action (return a template) and a resource (three-step thinking template), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like calc-eval or fetch-status. However, it leaves ambiguous what the template is for or how it relates to the nine parameters, so the purpose is only partially clear.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, conditions, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess when a three-step thinking template is needed.

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