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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries full responsibility. It mentions 'Prompt discarded,' which hints that input is ignored, but this is ambiguous—does it mean the user prompt or the parameter values? The parameter descriptions suggest each parameter is validated then discarded, yet the tool's overall behavior is not disclosed. No side effects, return format, or error conditions are described.

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 terse—one short sentence. While conciseness is valued, this under-specification fails to communicate the tool's purpose or usage effectively. The note 'Prompt discarded' is ambiguous and poorly placed, adding confusion rather than clarity.

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 9 parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the thinking template's content, when to invoke the tool, how parameters are used, or what the returned template looks like. An agent cannot confidently call this tool correctly based on the provided definition.

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 has an individual description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters; it only vaguely says 'Prompt discarded.' While the schema documents each parameter, the description does not explain how parameters influence the template or if they are entirely ignored, leaving the relationship unclear. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a three-step thinking template') with a clear output resource. It is not a tautology and distinguishes this tool from siblings by describing a unique behavior. However, it does not clarify what the template is for or how it relates to the parameters, leaving some ambiguity.

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 exclusions, and the sibling list offers many other tools with no routing hints. An agent would have to guess when this tool is appropriate.

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