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

The phrase 'Key discarded' hints that the key is not returned, but the tool's output, side effects, and read-only nature are not described. With no annotations, the agent is left guessing whether it returns a boolean, a validation error, or performs any other action.

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 free of fluff, but the brevity comes at the expense of essential details. The structure is minimal and lacks any explanation of the expected input or output format.

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?

The tool lacks a definition of what constitutes a valid Jira key shape, does not specify which parameter receives the key, and provides no output schema or error behavior. This makes the tool effectively unusable for an agent without additional assumptions.

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 parameters are entirely unrelated to Jira issue keys, with descriptions that seem copied from other tools (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check', 'IANA timezone name'). There is no 'key' or 'issue_key' parameter, making the schema misleading and unusable for the stated purpose.

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 says 'Check a Jira issue key shape' and 'Key discarded', which conveys the general intent, but it never identifies which input parameter should contain the Jira key. The schema has 9 unrelated optional string parameters (e.g., ref, url, city), so the agent cannot determine what to pass.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus sibling tools like domain-shape, figma-url-shape, or github-repo-shape. The description does not mention typical use cases, prerequisites, or any alternative selection criteria.

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