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

The description discloses a behavioral trait by saying the key is discarded, which is useful privacy/retention context. However, there are no annotations to carry the safety burden, and the description does not explain the check's output, side effects, or error behavior, so full transparency is still missing.

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 core action first and the discard behavior second. There is no filler, and each sentence contributes a distinct piece of information, though the brevity borders on under-specification.

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 tool with seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a two-sentence description is insufficient. It never states the required parameter, the expected Jira key format, or what the tool returns, so an agent cannot confidently invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is high with descriptions for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. However, the description itself does not identify which parameter should hold the Jira key, and the schema parameter meanings are generic (git ref, URL, city, feed, host, JSON, path), leaving uncertainty about how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 and resource: check a Jira issue key's shape. This is enough to distinguish it from domain-shape, github-repo-shape, or figma-url-shape by topic, though it does not name any sibling tool explicitly.

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 validate-json, wiki-title-ok, or the other shape-checking siblings. The tool name and one-line purpose imply a use case, but the description gives no context about when this check is appropriate or when an alternative should be preferred.

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