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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden, and it does explicitly state that the prompt is discarded. However, it does not mention that all schema parameters are effectively ignored, whether there are side effects, or what the returned template looks like. The schema hints at these behaviors, but the description itself only partially discloses them.

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 filler. 'Prompt discarded' is a necessary behavioral warning that earns its place. The structure is appropriately front-loaded and compact.

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?

The tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description does not explain how these parameters relate to the template or whether any arguments are needed. An agent cannot tell when to invoke this tool, what the three-step template consists of, or what the call will return. The description is too sparse for the complexity implied by the schema.

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 the baseline is 3 even though the tool description adds no parameter-level detail. The schema does provide meaningful descriptions for each parameter, mostly indicating they are discarded after a check. The description neither enhances nor contradicts the schema, so it neither gains nor loses points.

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 action and result: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' It also clarifies that the prompt is discarded, which distinguishes this from any generative or reasoning tool. It stops short of explaining what the template actually contains or why it exists, so it is clear but not fully specified.

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 of the many sibling tools. The description gives no context, no alternatives, and no conditions under which the tool should be called. 'Prompt discarded' is a behavioral note rather than a usage guideline.

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