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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is a meaningful behavioral trait. However, it does not mention that all parameters are discarded after shape checks (as indicated in the schema descriptions), nor does it explain the lack of side effects or output structure. Partial disclosure but incomplete.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence that states the core function and a key behavioral note. No wasted words; every phrase 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 with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is severely under-specified. It does not explain what the three-step template contains, when it should be used, or how the parameters relate to the output. An agent would need to rely heavily on the schema and guess at the intended use case.

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 every parameter is documented with its purpose and discard behavior. The description adds no parameter-specific information, but the schema fully compensates. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('a three-step thinking template'), which is clear and distinct from sibling tools like shape checkers or validators. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but the function is unique enough that confusion is unlikely.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description gives no context for invocation, no exclusions, and no indication of what situations call for a thinking template. The 'Prompt discarded' note hints that it might be used when input is irrelevant, but that is not made explicit.

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