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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Key discarded,' which is a minor data-handling note. It does not mention whether the operation is read-only, what it returns, or how it handles invalid shapes.

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 compact and front-loaded; both sentences carry signal with no filler. It could be seen as terse, but for the purpose it states, it is economically written.

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 tool has nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must explain return behavior and scope. It does not say whether the tool returns a boolean, a normalized key, or an error, nor how the many unrelated parameters relate to the Jira key shape check.

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 even though the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. The schema itself documents the nine parameters, but the description's 'key' does not clearly correspond to any of the named properties, creating ambiguity.

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 action and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This is clear and matches the tool name. However, it does not differentiate from sibling shape-checking tools or explain what a valid shape looks like.

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 use this tool instead of siblings like github-repo-shape, domain-shape, or file-path-ok. Usage is only implied by the name and the minimal description, with no exclusions or alternative routing.

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