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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the transparency burden. It openly states that the prompt is discarded and the tool returns only a fixed template; the schema also annotates most parameters as 'discarded after the check/call.' It does not describe the exact template content or any side effects, but for a static, non-destructive template tool this is sufficient.

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?

Two short sentences; the core instruction is front-loaded and the exclusion 'Prompt discarded' is stated in as few words as possible. No redundant phrases.

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 a large optional schema and no output schema, the description is thin: it doesn't state that all params are ignored at the tool level or what the three-step template contains. The schema's 'discarded' notes fill part of the gap, but an agent still has to infer that the expected invocation is effectively parameterless.

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?

The input schema already documents every parameter, so the description needs to add little. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the returned template or whether they are required, but the schema's coverage is high, so 3 is the appropriate baseline.

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?

States a precise verb+resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' The additional sentence 'Prompt discarded' clarifies the tool is not a prompt-processing assistant, distinguishing it from the utility siblings. This leaves no doubt about the core capability.

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?

'Prompt discarded' is a clear negative guideline: the agent should not expect its prompt to influence the result, which tells it when not to rely on this tool for bespoke reasoning. It does not name an alternative tool or a positive condition, so it falls short of a 5.

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