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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior itself. It mentions 'Prompt discarded', which indicates input is ignored, but it does not disclose whether the operation is safe/read-only, any side effects, or what the template actually is. This is minimal disclosure for a tool that likely just returns a fixed output.

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 short with no filler, making it efficient. However, it is under-specified, which is a trade-off, but conciseness itself is strong.

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?

Despite having 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides no detail on the template content, return value, or usage context. An agent would not know what the template looks like or when to invoke this tool, making it incomplete for effective selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, with each parameter explicitly stating it is discarded after a check. The description adds only a generic 'Prompt discarded' which does not enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 the tool 'Return a three-step thinking template', which is a clear verb+resource. However, it does not explain what the template contains or how it differs from sibling tools like 'calc-eval' or 'validate-json', so it lacks sibling differentiation.

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. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or scenarios where it is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer its purpose.

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