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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'Prompt discarded,' which is ambiguous and does not state that the tool ignores all parameter values (as each schema property notes 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool's static-template behavior is not communicated, leaving the agent unaware that its inputs have no effect.

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 and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It omits critical information about the tool's behavior and parameter handling, so brevity comes at the cost of usefulness.

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 9 parameters and no output schema, the description is far from complete. It does not explain the purpose of the parameters, the nature of the template, or the tool's actual operation (validating shape then returning a static result). An agent would lack enough context to use it correctly beyond blind trust.

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%, and each parameter already has a description noting it is discarded after a shape check. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate; it neither helps nor hinders beyond the schema.

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 verb ('Return') and a concrete resource ('a three-step thinking template'), so an agent knows what the tool produces. However, it does not distinguish this from sibling tools like 'calc-eval' or 'status-catalog' that also return fixed outputs, and it does not explain what the template is for.

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 any alternative. The only contextual hint, 'Prompt discarded,' is about behavior rather than selection criteria, and no sibling tool is mentioned. An agent cannot decide when to invoke this tool over another.

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