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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It does disclose a key behavioral trait, that the prompt is discarded, which is not obvious from the schema alone. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or any other behavioral details.

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 two short sentences with no redundant words, and the key behavioral fact 'Prompt discarded' is stated front and center. It earns its place with zero waste.

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?

With no output schema, the description should explain what the 'three-step thinking template' actually contains or its format, but it does not. It also leaves unclear whether any of the many parameters are required or how the agent should construct a minimal valid call.

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 already documents all 11 parameters with individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'Prompt discarded' note adds a general statement that inputs are ignored, but it does not provide per-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already says.

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 uses a specific verb 'Return' and a distinct resource 'three-step thinking template', and the note 'Prompt discarded' clarifies the input is not used. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform validation, fetch, or lookup operations.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only says what it returns, not the circumstances under which an agent should invoke it, and it names no alternative tools or exclusion criteria.

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