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

The description discloses that the key is discarded, which is useful side-effect information and partially compensates for the lack of annotations. However, it does not explain what constitutes a valid Jira key shape, what gets returned, or what happens on invalid input, leaving the core behavior under-specified.

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, no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. Both sentences earn their place: one defines the action, the other clarifies data handling.

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 output schema and no return-format description, the agent is left without expectations for the result. The description also fails to connect the Jira key to the actual schema parameters, making the tool difficult to invoke correctly without prior knowledge.

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 documents seven parameters with detailed descriptions, but none of them is named or described as a Jira key. The description's 'Key' concept does not map to any input schema field, so despite the high schema coverage, the agent cannot determine which parameter 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 states a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('Jira issue key shape'), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. The additional phrase 'Key discarded' also signals a read-only validation action.

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?

The intended use is clear: validate a Jira issue key's shape. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any when-not-to-use or exclusionary notes. It relies on the implicit context of the tool name.

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