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

The description discloses that the key is discarded, which is a useful data-handling detail, but there are no annotations to carry the safety burden. It does not mention return values, side effects, validation behavior, or failure modes, leaving most behavioral characteristics undisclosed.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. Two sentences cover only purpose and disposal, leaving critical selection and usage details absent.

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?

With seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far from complete. An agent cannot confidently infer which input to pass, what result to expect, or how the tool differs from its siblings.

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 input schema describes seven parameters, but none is explicitly identified as the Jira key mentioned in the description. The description adds no mapping between the schema fields and the stated purpose, and effectively creates confusion about which parameter should be used.

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 verb and resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), which establishes the basic purpose. However, it does not define what a valid key shape is or which schema parameter represents the Jira key, so an agent cannot determine how to apply it to the provided inputs.

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 is given about when to use this tool versus sibling shape-checking tools like github-repo-shape, domain-shape, or wiki-title-ok. The description provides no context, exclusions, or alternative selection criteria.

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