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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Key discarded' hints that input is not persisted, but it does not disclose whether the tool returns a boolean, throws an error, or what a shape check entails. Side effects and output behavior are unstated.

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 short and free of filler, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. For a 9-parameter tool, two fragments do not constitute helpful structure.

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?

A 9-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations needs far more context. The description omits the valid key pattern, the parameter to use, and the expected response, making it inadequate for reliable invocation.

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 schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no parameter-level meaning; it even references a 'key' that does not appear among the nine schema properties. The detailed schema descriptions exist, but nothing connects a given parameter to the Jira key check, so the agent cannot tell which value to pass.

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 clear action and target ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools. However, it never defines the expected Jira key format (e.g., 'PROJ-123'), and the phrase 'Key discarded' is ambiguous. The mismatch with the schema—which has no 'key' parameter—further weakens purpose clarity.

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 sibling shape checkers such as github-repo-shape or domain-shape. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or examples of a valid invocation.

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