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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the prompt is discarded, which is a useful trait, but it does not clarify that the nine parameters appear irrelevant to the output or that the tool likely returns a static template regardless of input. The schema descriptions hint at discarding for some parameters, but the tool description itself is silent on this, creating ambiguity.

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 short sentences with no filler. Each sentence contributes: one defines the action, the other notes a behavioral quirk. It is front-loaded and economical, though it could include more context without becoming verbose.

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 nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of the parameters, the format of the returned template, or any prerequisites. It also fails to clarify whether the parameters are simply ignored, leaving the agent guessing about correct invocation. This is a critical gap for a tool of 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents each parameter's apparent purpose. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable under the baseline rule for high coverage. It does not compensate for the schema's vague 'discarded' notes, but it does not need to for a baseline score.

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 verb and resource: 'Return a three-step thinking template.' This is specific and unambiguous, though it lacks detail about the template's content or purpose. It does not differentiate from siblings, but the name and function are distinct enough from the URL/checking tools listed.

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 only states what it returns and that the prompt is discarded, but gives no context for selecting it. No exclusions or alternative tools are mentioned, leaving the agent without direction.

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