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

The note 'Key discarded.' is a useful side-effect disclosure, but with no annotations present the description carries the full burden of behavioral transparency. It does not describe what the check returns, whether it validates, normalizes, or communicates success/failure, or what happens with the other supplied parameters.

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 no filler words. However, it is so terse that it sacrifices necessary detail about parameters and output, which keeps it from being fully effective conciseness.

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 the mismatched schema properties, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. It omits which parameter is required, what a valid 'shape' is, and what result the agent should expect.

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?

The schema has descriptions, but they are generic and disconnected from the tool's stated purpose: none of the properties is explicitly identified as the Jira key. The description adds no parameter mapping beyond saying a 'key' is discarded, so an agent cannot confidently select which input to supply.

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 the action ('Check') and the resource ('Jira issue key shape'), which clearly identifies what the tool is about and distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools for other domains. It is concise but does not expand on what 'shape' entails beyond the name.

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 invoke this tool vs. alternatives like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. The description does not mention conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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