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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure; 'Key discarded' does add one useful privacy-relevant trait. But it says nothing about return values, validation failure behavior, or whether the check is synchronous, leaving most behavioral expectations unspecified.

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 no filler: the operation is stated first and the disposal behavior second. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a 9-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no description of the accepted key format, return contract, or error behavior. The schema's parameters are unrelated to Jira keys, so an agent cannot determine how to invoke it correctly from this definition.

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?

Even though schema description coverage is 100%, the description refers to a 'key' that does not exist anywhere in the input schema. The schema documents ref/url/city/etc., but nothing maps them to the stated Jira-key purpose, so the description actively fails to clarify which parameter to populate.

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 names a specific operation and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This is far more specific than generic sibling tools and clearly identifies the domain. It loses a point because the valid shape is not described and the input schema never actually defines a 'key' parameter.

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?

The wording implies the tool is for validating a Jira issue key, and the sibling list contains other shape-checkers for different resources. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance and does not name any alternative.

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