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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Prompt discarded,' which hints the prompt is ignored, but it doesn't disclose any side effects, whether it's read-only, or what happens with the parameters. It's completely opaque about its behavior.

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?

It is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks necessary information. While brevity is a virtue, it sacrifices essential details about the tool's purpose and usage. It's not well-structured; it's just a fragment.

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 the tool has 9 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool does with the parameters, what the template looks like, or how to interpret the output. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on this description.

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 schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for each parameter, but the tool description adds nothing about how these parameters affect the output. The schema descriptions themselves are vague (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'), and the tool description doesn't explain the connection. Thus the description provides no 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 it returns a three-step thinking template, which is a specific output, but it doesn't clarify what the template is for or how it relates to the nine parameters. It doesn't distinguish from siblings, which appear to be specific utility tools. The mention of 'Prompt discarded' is confusing and doesn't clarify the tool's role.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. An agent would have no idea why to invoke this over, say, calc-eval or normalize-url.

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