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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one key trait: the prompt is discarded. However, it does not clarify what happens to the seven input parameters, whether any network calls are made, whether validation can fail, or what the returned template actually contains.

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 with no waste. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the important 'Prompt discarded' behavior is stated explicitly. It is appropriately concise for the content it contains.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a one-line behavioral note. Agents have no idea whether the parameters are honored, what a successful response looks like, what errors can occur, or why this tool exists alongside numerous shape-check siblings. This is severely incomplete.

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 descriptions already cover every parameter in detail, so schema_description_coverage is high and the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, but it also does not need to because each property has its own description.

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 verb and resource: it returns a three-step thinking template. It is a specific action rather than a tautology of the name. However, it does not explain what a 'thinking template' looks like, so the purpose is understandable but underspecified.

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 any sibling. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' implies it is not an executing agent, but the description never says when an agent should call it, what problem it solves, or when it should prefer an alternative.

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