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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It discloses only that the key is 'discarded', but not whether the tool returns a boolean, throws on invalid shape, performs network access, or has side effects. This is insufficient for a validation 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?

The description is very short, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient conciseness. 'Key discarded' is unclear (discarded from what?) and the front-loaded sentence does not provide the identifying or routing information an agent needs.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely incomplete. It does not identify the relevant input, the accepted Jira key shape, the return value, or any failure behavior, leaving the agent to guess.

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 fails to map the 'Jira issue key' to any of the nine schema properties, none of which is named 'key'. It introduces a term that does not appear in the schema and adds no meaning beyond the existing property descriptions.

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 simply restates the tool name: 'Check a Jira issue key shape' adds little beyond 'jira-key-shape'. It does not define what a valid Jira key looks like or which schema property should receive the key, so an agent cannot confidently map intent to a 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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this over sibling shape checkers such as github-repo-shape, domain-shape, or figma-url-shape. The use case is only implied by the phrase 'Jira issue key'; there are no exclusions or alternative conditions.

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