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

The description discloses that the prompt is discarded, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it doesn't mention that all 9 parameters are similarly ignored (or used only for shape checks as the schema suggests). With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and this partial disclosure is insufficient for a tool with so many parameters.

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 a single sentence that gets straight to the point: 'Return a three-step thinking template. Prompt discarded.' Every word earns its place, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It's an exemplar of concise writing.

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 optional parameters and no output schema, yet the description doesn't explain why these parameters exist, whether they affect the output, or what the template looks like. The 'Prompt discarded' line hints at input being ignored, but the agent is left uncertain about the actual behavior and the structure of the returned template. This is a significant gap for a tool that could be called with any of these 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond the schema; it doesn't even mention the parameters. The schema already documents each parameter and its 'discarded' behavior, so the description contributes nothing extra.

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: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is clear and distinct from sibling tools, which all perform data operations. However, it is very terse and doesn't elaborate on what the template contains or why the tool exists, so it's not a 5.

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 description provides zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any scenario, prerequisite, or exclusion. An agent has no idea when to invoke this over any other sibling tool.

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