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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that it returns a template and that the prompt is discarded, which implies inputs may be ignored. However, it does not clarify whether the tool is read-only, has side effects, or how it handles invalid inputs. The statement 'Prompt discarded' is a useful behavioral hint but incomplete.

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 concise: two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the main action ('Return a three-step thinking template') and adds a note about the prompt. While minimal, it is efficient and avoids redundancy.

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 inadequate. It does not explain what the three-step template looks like, how (if at all) the parameters influence the output, or why the prompt is discarded. An agent would be uncertain about the tool's behavior and expected return value, especially with no annotation or output schema to provide additional context.

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 each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no information about how parameters relate to the returned template or whether they are actually used. Since the schema carries the parameter documentation, the description does not need to repeat it, but it also does not add any value 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 action ('Return') and a specific resource ('a three-step thinking template'), which is clear. However, 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous — it could mean the input is ignored, but the schema has 9 parameters, so the purpose is not fully clarified. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, though the unique template output distinguishes it from the listed utility tools.

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 alternatives. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or when it should be preferred over sibling tools. The description merely states what it does without contextualizing its usage.

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