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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. 'Key discarded' usefully signals a non-persistent, side-effect-free check and aligns with the schema's 'discarded' notes. But it does not describe the output, error behavior, or any external dependencies.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, and each sentence adds information. The brevity costs clarity because the critical parameter mapping is omitted, preventing 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?

Given seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description omits essential invocation context: which input to provide, expected key shape rules, return value, and invalid-input behavior. Only the non-persistence hint is present, leaving the agent to guess.

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 itself documents all seven string parameters, so the baseline would normally be 3. However, the description refers to a 'Key' that maps to no property in the schema, leaving the agent unable to determine where to supply the Jira key. This mismatch undermines parameter selection despite strong schema-level descriptions.

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 specific action ('Check') and a specific resource ('Jira issue key shape'), which conceptually distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. However, it never identifies which input schema property carries the key, so the purpose is clear only at a high level.

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; it does not mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only usage clue is implicit in the name and the phrase 'Check a Jira issue key shape.'

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