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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Key discarded' discloses that the key is not retained, and 'Check' implies a read-only operation, but it does not describe the return value, error behavior, or whether any fetch/validation side effect 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?

Two short sentences with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The text is appropriately concise, though the extreme brevity sacrifices useful guidance.

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, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too sparse. It fails to specify the input parameter, the expected key format, or what the tool returns, leaving the agent with no reliable basis for 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?

The schema has seven parameters, each with descriptions, but none is clearly identified as the Jira key input. The description mentions 'key' while the schema fields are generic and unrelated (e.g., city, feed, host), so an agent cannot reliably determine which parameter to populate. High schema coverage does not compensate for this mismatch.

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 uses the specific verb 'check' with the resource 'Jira issue key shape', which clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, it leaves ambiguous which parameter carries the key and what 'shape' means operationally.

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 sibling shape-checking tools, nor any mention of the expected input format or source (e.g., ref, url). An agent must infer the usage context entirely 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.