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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose that the key is discarded after the check, suggesting no retention. Yet it does not state whether the tool returns a boolean, normalized key, or error, and it doesn't describe any other behavioral constraints.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundant words: the first states the purpose and the second adds the behavioral guarantee. It is appropriately sized for a simple shape-checker, though it could be more informative.

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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is not complete enough: it omits the input parameter mapping and the return behavior. The agent would likely guess which property to fill or pass the wrong field, especially since the schema properties appear to be shared across many sibling tools.

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 has 100% parameter descriptions, but none of the nine parameters is a Jira issue key; they are ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query. The description does not map 'key' to any of these fields, so even with full schema coverage an agent cannot know what to pass.

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 operation: it checks the shape of a Jira issue key, which distinguishes it from sibling shape checkers like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, it is essentially a sentence expansion of the tool name and gives no detail about what constitutes a valid Jira key.

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?

The phrase 'Jira issue key shape' implies it should be used when validating Jira issue keys, and the sibling list contains analogous shape checkers. But there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use instructions and no named alternatives.

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