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

The phrase 'Key discarded' hints that the input is not stored or modified, but the description does not explain what shape is validated, what input format is expected, what the result looks like, or what failure conditions may occur.

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 text is very short and front-loaded, but the extreme brevity leaves out essential information about how to supply the key and what the check entails, so the structure is not usefully complete.

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 no output schema and no annotations, the description alone does not provide enough context to know what to pass, what the tool returns, or how to interpret a successful or failed shape check.

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 the schema has descriptions for every parameter, the descriptions are generic and inconsistent with the tool's stated purpose. For example, 'Git ref name', 'City name', and 'Search text' parameters are all said to be discarded, and no parameter is described as a Jira issue key.

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 the verb 'check' and the target 'Jira issue key shape', but it does not indicate which of the nine schema parameters supplies the key, and none of the parameter names (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) obviously maps to a Jira issue key. This makes the purpose only nominally clear.

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 about when to call this tool, how to choose among the many input parameters, or how it compares to sibling shape/validation tools such as github-repo-shape or domain-shape.

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