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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Key discarded' and 'Check' hint that the operation is non-mutating and stateless, but the description does not disclose what the tool returns, how invalid shapes are handled, or what happens if no relevant parameter is provided.

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 two short sentences with no filler, action front-loaded, and the privacy/statelessness note 'Key discarded' earns its place. It is extremely concise and well-structured.

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 no annotations or output schema, and a schema that appears to be unrelated to Jira keys, the description is far from complete. The tool lacks the critical parameter mapping and expected validation behavior, making it difficult 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?

While the schema provides descriptions for all parameters, none of those descriptions mentions a Jira issue key. The parameters cover git refs, URLs, cities, RSS feeds, hostnames, JSON, and paths, but the description never maps the 'key' to any of them. An agent cannot determine what to pass.

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 clearly states the specific action ('Check a Jira issue key shape') and the resource being checked. It distinguishes this tool from sibling shape-checking tools like github-repo-shape and figma-url-shape by naming Jira. However, it does not specify which input parameter carries the Jira key, which slightly weakens clarity.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-checking tools, nor does it mention limitations or exclusions. The description simply states what it does without contextualizing the appropriate use case.

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