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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden and does disclose the most important behavior: the prompt is discarded. The schema descriptions reinforce that all parameters are discarded, so an agent understands inputs are ignored. It does not detail side effects or return format, but 'discarded' strongly implies a read-only, input-ignoring operation.

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 the main action front-loaded and no filler. 'Prompt discarded' earns its place as critical behavioral context.

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 optional, discarded parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and that the prompt is ignored. It could explicitly say that no arguments are needed or describe the template's contents, but the schema already makes optionality clear.

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. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond 'Prompt discarded,' which is already reflected in the schema. Since all parameters are optional and marked as discarded, no additional semantics are needed.

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 the tool's function is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

The purpose implies use whenever a three-step thinking template is needed, and 'Prompt discarded' signals that prompt content will not be processed. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives.

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