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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the burden of explaining observable behavior. It discloses one thing: the prompt is discarded. But it does not state that the tool is read-only, whether it performs computation, or how it handles the schema parameters. For an unannotated tool with a vague side effect, this is insufficient.

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 short and starts with the core action, which is structurally efficient. The second sentence, 'Prompt discarded.', is vague and arguably does not earn its place because it creates confusion about what prompt is being discarded rather than clarifying behavior.

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 the absence of an output schema, annotations, and the presence of 9 unrelated optional parameters, the description is incomplete. It does not specify what the three-step template looks like, whether parameters are required, which are ignored, or what the agent should expect as a return value. This leaves too much room for mis-invocation.

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 input schema already documents all 9 optional parameters at 100% coverage, so the description is not required to repeat them. However, the description itself adds no additional parameter insights, such as whether all parameters are ignored, which would be valuable. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema covers the parameter meanings.

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.' That distinguishes the basic action, but it doesn't say what the template is for or how it relates to the 9 optional parameters. 'Prompt discarded' is cryptic and does not clarify the purpose relative to similar sibling tools.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided. The description gives no hint about which sibling tools it substitutes, when an agent should select it, or what conditions require it. The phrase 'Prompt discarded.' implies the prompt is not used, but does not give actual selection guidance.

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