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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It reveals that the key is discarded after the check, a useful behavioral/privacy trait, but it does not explain the return value, side effects, or whether this is strictly read-only. This is some context, but not a complete behavioral picture.

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 no filler; 'Check a ... shape. Key discarded.' is front-loaded and every sentence carries information. The terseness borders on under-specification, but for a concise purpose statement it is well-formed.

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?

With seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description does too little: it never says which parameter represents the key, what 'shape' means, what result is returned, or when to prefer this over sibling shape tools. This is materially incomplete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is effectively 100%—every parameter has a description—so the baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter mapping. The description fails to indicate which parameter holds the Jira key, and the schema descriptions reference unrelated things (ref, city, JSON, path), so the semantics remain confusing in practice.

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-resource pair, 'Check a Jira issue key shape', which clearly identifies the operation and distinguishes it from sibling shape tools such as domain-shape or github-repo-shape. It does not, however, specify what a valid Jira key looks like or which schema parameter carries the key, leaving a small ambiguity.

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?

The 'Jira issue key' wording supplies a clear use context—this tool is for Jira key shapes, not domains or GitHub repos. It does not mention explicit exclusions or alternatives, but the naming convention among sibling tools makes the intended selection fairly evident.

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