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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only states that the prompt is discarded, but does not disclose the tool's side effects, whether it is read-only, what the template looks like, or how the parameters are treated. The schema descriptions say each parameter is 'discarded after a check,' but the main description adds little.

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 two sentences with no fluff, but it is under-specified to the point of being unhelpful. The front-loaded statement about returning a template is clear, but the rest adds little value. It is concise but lacks necessary content.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain why the parameters exist, what the three-step thinking template is, or how the tool should be used. An agent would be unable to decide when to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter is described individually (e.g., 'discarded after the shape check'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 applies since the schema handles the parameter documentation.

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 verb and resource ('Return a three-step thinking template'), but the resource is vague and the purpose is not differentiated from the many sibling validation tools. The mention of 'Prompt discarded' is confusing given nine input parameters, making the tool's actual function unclear.

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 is given on when to use this tool versus the sibling tools like domain-shape, validate-json, or normalize-url. The description does not mention any conditions, alternatives, or exclusions.

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