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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals that the key is discarded after the check, which is useful, but it does not mention return values, error behavior, side effects, or whether other inputs are ignored. This is minimal behavior information.

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 the main action front-loaded. Both sentences carry meaningful information: the first states the tool's purpose and the second discloses data handling. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with seven schema properties and no output schema, this description is inadequate for correct invocation. It fails to specify which input is the Jira key and what the shape-check result looks like, leaving an agent with insufficient information to select and call the tool.

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 description's central concept, the Jira key, is not mapped to any of the seven schema properties. The schema fields like ref, url, city, and json have their own descriptions, but none clearly represents the Jira issue key, so an agent cannot determine what to pass. The description adds no parameter-level guidance.

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 clear resource, 'Jira issue key shape', which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. However, it does not explain which input parameter carries the Jira key, so purpose clarity is not complete.

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 when-to-use guidance, no comparison with alternatives, and no prerequisites or exclusions. The single sentence only implies that this tool is for checking Jira issue key shapes, but it does not help an agent decide between this and sibling tools.

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