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

The description includes a minimal behavioral note ('Key discarded'), but with no annotations, it omits details about return values, error behavior, or side effects. The ambiguity of which input is 'discarded' further weakens transparency.

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 brief and front-loaded with the purpose, but the second sentence 'Key discarded.' is a cryptic fragment. It is concise, yet it lacks structure to bridge the purpose to the actual parameters.

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 seven parameters and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not explain what constitutes a valid Jira key shape, which input to pass, or what the tool returns, leaving a significant completeness gap.

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?

The schema fully describes all parameters, so coverage is high, but the description introduces a 'key' that does not map to any property in the schema. It adds no guidance on which parameter to pass and actively misaligns with the structured input definition.

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'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape-check tools. However, it does not identify which schema parameter holds the key, creating some ambiguity about how to supply the input.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or specify conditions, so an agent must infer the use case solely from the tool name.

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