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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. The phrase 'Key discarded' explicitly states that the key is not retained, which is a genuine behavioral note. However, it does not describe return value, side effects, or error behavior.

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-loads the purpose in the first sentence. However, 'Key discarded' adds little actionable information and the brevity hides critical details about inputs and expected results.

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 eight parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It omits which input carries the Jira key, what a valid shape is, what the check returns, and how it differs from other shape-validation tools.

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 every schema parameter has a description, the tool description never identifies which parameter is the Jira key or how the key should be supplied. None of the parameters are named 'key,' and the schema descriptions are generic, so the agent cannot map the described concept to the actual inputs.

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 uses a specific verb and object: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. The trailing 'Key discarded' is confusing but does not obscure the core purpose.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github-repo-shape or figma-url-shape. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and first sentence, with no exclusions or prerequisites stated.

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