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

The description adds one behavioral note ('Key discarded'), implying the input is not retained, but there are no annotations to fall back on. It does not disclose whether the tool returns a boolean, throws on invalid shapes, or what 'shape' validation entails.

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 extremely short and front-loaded, with no filler. However, the second clause 'Key discarded.' is cryptic and would benefit from being folded into a clearer, complete sentence.

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, this description is far too sparse. It fails to identify the required parameter, the expected return value, error behavior, or how this tool relates to sibling shape-checking tools.

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 provides descriptions for seven parameters, but none is linked to the Jira key concept in the tool description. The phrase 'Key discarded' does not map to any schema property, so the agent cannot determine which field to populate.

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 names a specific operation ('Check a Jira issue key shape') and helps distinguish from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, the schema contains no 'key' parameter, and 'Key discarded.' is ambiguous about which input is the key, weakening the 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 given about when to use this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The intended use can be inferred only from the tool name and first sentence, with no explicit direction or context.

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