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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only discloses that the key is discarded, but omits expected output, side effects, validation criteria, or whether any network activity 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?

The description is very short and front-loads the core purpose immediately. It is concise, though the second sentence adds only a discard note rather than more operationally useful detail.

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 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this two-sentence description is critically incomplete. An agent cannot determine what input to pass for checking a Jira key, what the return value is, or how the generic schema relates to the stated purpose.

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?

Although every parameter has a schema description, none of the 9 parameters is identified as the Jira issue key. The schema parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) appear unrelated to 'Jira issue key', so the high schema coverage does not resolve the 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 states a specific operation ('Check') and a specific resource ('Jira issue key shape'), which distinguishes it at a high level from sibling shape-check tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, it does not define what a valid Jira key looks like or identify which parameter carries the key, limiting its 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?

The description offers no guidance about when to use this tool versus the many sibling validators such as normalize-url, validate-json, file-path-ok, or search-query-len. It gives no selection criteria, exclusions, or alternative tool mentions.

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