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

With no annotations, the burden is on the description. It discloses one trait—'Key discarded'—suggesting the input key is not retained, but it does not state return value, side effects, or expected key format. This is minimal disclosure for a check tool.

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 brief sentences, purpose first, no filler. The second sentence 'Key discarded' is terse but conveys a privacy-relevant trait without extra words.

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?

Given 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too sparse to fully guide invocation: it never identifies which parameter carries the Jira key or what a shape check returns. The agent is left to guess among the schema properties.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no mapping of the Jira key to a schema property and no format details, though the schema already describes each parameter's discard behavior.

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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('Jira issue key shape'), and the Jira qualifier separates it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or figma-url-shape. It does not explain what 'shape' means, but the core action is 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?

No sentence addresses when to choose this over sibling checks or what input forms are accepted. The only context is the tool name and description, leaving the agent to infer applicability without explicit alternatives or exclusions.

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