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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does state that the key is discarded, which is a useful privacy-relevant detail, but it omits what counts as a valid Jira key shape, what the tool returns, and whether there are side effects. The disclosure is minimal and incomplete for a validation tool.

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, front-loaded, and contains no filler; both sentences earn their place. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, so it doesn't earn a perfect score.

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 seven input properties, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far from adequate. It fails to identify which parameter to pass, what the accepted Jira key format is, what the return value looks like, or how this tool relates to siblings. The unrelated generic parameters in the schema further complicate 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 schema already describes all seven parameters, so the baseline is arguably 3, but the description undermines that by talking about a 'Jira issue key' while no schema property matches that concept. The schema properties are generic (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) and do not clarify which one receives the key. The description adds no useful parameter mapping and introduces confusion.

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 gives a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Jira issue key shape'), so the core purpose is clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling shape checkers by naming Jira, but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, and the schema has no property literally named as a Jira key, creating some ambiguity.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives, and no prerequisites. The only additional sentence, 'Key discarded,' is a behavioral note, not a usage guideline. An agent cannot determine when to choose this over domain-shape, github-repo-shape, or validate-json.

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