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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only states that the prompt is discarded and that a template is returned, without explaining side effects, error conditions, or what happens to the parameters. The schema descriptions mention 'discarded after' for many fields, but the description itself adds minimal behavioral context.

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 brief (two phrases), which is concise, but it lacks structure and clarity. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' is an abrupt fragment that does not contribute meaningfully. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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 9 optional parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. An agent cannot determine what the three-step template looks like, what the output format is, or how the parameters affect the result. The description leaves too much unspecified for a tool with this many parameters.

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%, so the parameters are already fully described in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear action ('Return a three-step thinking template') and a resource, but the additional phrase 'Prompt discarded' is cryptic and doesn't clarify the tool's purpose or context. It fails to distinguish this tool from the many siblings in the list.

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 mention of 'Prompt discarded' hints at some injection-related behavior but does not explicitly explain when to invoke it or when to avoid it.

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