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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It adds 'Key discarded' as a data-handling trait, but it does not disclose return behavior, error handling, or confirm the tool is read-only. An agent cannot tell what a successful or failed shape check returns.

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 and front-loaded with the action, and 'Key discarded' adds privacy context with minimal extra words. However, 'Key discarded' is a fragment and the terseness leaves important behavioral details unstated.

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?

There is no output schema, no annotation, and no statement of return value or which parameter carries the Jira key. With nine parameters and none visibly named 'key', the description is not sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool confidently.

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 parameter-level meaning beyond the schema and does not map the term 'key' to any specific parameter.

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 verb and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like github-repo-shape, domain-shape, and figma-url-shape by naming the Jira issue key as the subject.

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 the many sibling shape-checkers, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The only usage signal is implied by the tool's name and purpose statement.

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