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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that the key is discarded ('Key discarded.'), implying a non-persistent check. However, it does not describe return values, error behavior, or whether the tool is strictly read-only beyond the discard note.

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 short sentences with zero fluff. The core action is front-loaded, and every word earns its place—no filler or redundant restatement.

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?

The schema is complex and includes many seemingly unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, json, path), but the description gives no guidance on which are required or what the response looks like. There is no output schema, so an agent must infer that only 'ref' matters, which is ambiguous.

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 provides descriptions for all 7 parameters, notably 'ref' ('Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') which identifies the input relevant to the shape check. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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?

States a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Jira issue key shape'). The 'Jira' qualifier distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape and domain-shape, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool vs. alternatives. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or how it relates to other validators such as validate-json or wiki-title-ok.

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