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

Since no annotations are supplied, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses that the prompt is discarded, but it fails to explicitly say that all parameters are ignored and the output is always the same template. This is only partial transparency, potentially misleading an agent into thinking parameters matter.

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 just two short sentences, with no filler or redundant detail. 'Prompt discarded' is a purposeful, extra piece of info, and the core function is stated upfront. This is appropriately concise.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a one-line description. There is no explanation of what the three-step template looks like, why the parameters exist, or how to get value from the call. An agent has no way of knowing the expected output structure or confirming whether the tool is safe to invoke, making the description near-inadequate for this complexity.

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 gives each of the 9 parameters a description, achieving 100% coverage, but the tool description does not clarify how they affect the three-step template. The descriptions like 'discarded' or 'to normalize or cite' actually conflict with the 'Prompt discarded' idea, suggesting parameters may be ignored while still implying possible use. The description fails to reconcile this, leaving parameter semantics unclear.

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 action and outcome: 'Return a three-step thinking template'. This is a specific verb and resource, so an agent can grasp the core purpose. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings, but its name and outcome are distinct enough to avoid immediate confusion.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like search-query-len or validate-json. The phrase 'Prompt discarded' hints at a stateless operation, but it does not state a scenario or excluded cases, leaving the agent to guess whether this is the right tool.

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