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

The phrase 'Key discarded' is a useful data-handling disclosure beyond the absent annotations, indicating the key is not retained. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns, whether an invalid shape raises an error, or any other side effects.

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 the purpose front-loaded and no filler. Loses a point because 'Key discarded' is ambiguous without a named key parameter, but the text is appropriately compact.

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 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is too thin: it omits return behavior, the expected key format, and which parameter carries the key. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the schema makes the tool hard to invoke correctly.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description introduces a 'Jira issue key' concept that none of the nine schema properties references; there is no key or jira parameter. An agent cannot tell whether to pass the key as ref, query, or some other property.

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?

States a specific action (check) and a specific resource (Jira issue key shape), distinguishing it from sibling shape validators like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. It is not a tautology, though it does not define what a valid Jira key shape looks like.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The only usage signal is the tool name and the verb phrase, which is implied rather than explicit.

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