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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Key discarded' at least suggests non-retention and side-effect-free validation, which is useful. But it does not disclose return value, error behavior, expected valid shapes, or whether any network/API access occurs.

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 and avoids waste, but it is under-specified rather than appropriately concise. Two sentences provide minimal surface-level information and no structural aids such as examples, conditions, or parameter mapping.

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?

Given nine optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a large set of sibling tools, this description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameter to populate, what the tool returns, or how it behaves, making confident selection and invocation impossible.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description never maps 'Jira key' to any of the nine parameters; there is no `key` field and the schema shows unrelated parameters like url, city, feed, and json. Although every parameter has a schema description, the core semantic link between the tool's purpose and its actual inputs is missing, making correct invocation guesswork.

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 verb and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This is distinct from sibling tools like github-repo-shape or figma-url-shape. However, it does not explain what constitutes a valid Jira key shape, and the phrase 'Key discarded' is ambiguous about the operation's effect.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as domain-shape, github-repo-shape, or normalize-url. The description neither gives context for its intended use nor excludes cases where another tool would be more appropriate.

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