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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses that the 'key' is discarded, but does not explain whether the check is local-only, whether the key is the only input used, what side effects occur, or what result is returned. The disclosure is vague and does not match any explicit schema parameter.

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 short, but brevity here is under-specification rather than conciseness. The two sentences do not earn their place because they omit the critical information needed to invoke the tool correctly, and the 'Key discarded' phrase is disconnected from the schema.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, a two-sentence description that fails to identify the relevant input or describe the return behavior is severely incomplete. It is not possible for an agent to know what to pass, what a valid shape is, or what the tool returns.

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%, which normally yields a baseline of 3, but the description provides no mapping from its 'key' concept to any of the nine schema properties. The schema properties (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) are unrelated to a Jira issue key, so an agent cannot determine which parameter to populate. The description fails to compensate for this mismatch.

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 restates the tool name ('jira-key-shape' → 'Check a Jira issue key shape') without adding substantive meaning. It says what resource is checked but not what 'shape' means, what a valid key looks like, or which schema parameter carries the key. 'Key discarded' is a behavioral note, not a clarification of 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?

No guidance is given about when to prefer this tool over its many sibling shape-checking tools, such as github-repo-shape, domain-shape, or figma-url-shape. The description only implies a use case from the name; it does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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