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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add one behavioral note—'Key discarded'—but it does not explain what happens on success/failure, what the return value is, or what 'discarded' means in terms of data handling.

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 only two short sentences and is front-loaded with the primary purpose. No words are wasted, and 'Key discarded' adds a behavioral hint without bloat, though it is cryptic.

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?

This is a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and seven potentially confusing parameters. The description is far too sparse to be complete; it omits the input-to-parameter mapping, the output shape, and usage context, all of which are needed for correct invocation.

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?

All seven schema properties have descriptions, so the baseline is 3, but the description never maps the 'Jira issue key' to any of them. The schema contains ref, url, city, feed, host, json, and path—none obviously a Jira key—and the description does not resolve which parameter should contain the key, leaving the agent guessing.

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 ('Check') and resource ('Jira issue key shape'), and the sibling tool names make the differentiation from other shape-checkers (domain-shape, github-repo-shape) clear. However, it does not give an example shape (e.g., PROJ-123) or identify which input parameter carries the Jira key, which is a small but real gap.

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 versus alternatives like github-repo-shape or wiki-title-ok. The intended use is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'check a Jira issue key shape', not explicitly stated.

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