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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does say 'Key discarded,' which signals non-retention, but it does not state whether the check is local or makes a network call, whether the result is a boolean or an error, or whether any side effects occur. This is too thin for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the 'Key discarded' note is meaningful. It earns each word.

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 simple shape-check tool, the description still leaves critical gaps: it does not define the expected Jira key format, does not identify the corresponding input parameter, and does not describe the return value. With no output schema and nine optional unrelated parameters, the agent lacks enough information to invoke the tool reliably.

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 refers to a 'Jira issue key,' but the input schema has no parameter for a Jira issue key; it offers ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query, none of which are described as a Jira key. Schema coverage is 100%, but the descriptions are irrelevant to the tool's stated purpose, so an agent cannot determine what to pass. This is actively misleading.

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 verb and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This clearly separates it from sibling shape-checkers like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. The phrase 'Key discarded' is an extra behavioral note, not a purpose statement, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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 about when to use this tool versus any alternative, no mention of what inputs are appropriate, and no exclusion criteria. Given many sibling shape-check tools exist, the agent is left to infer when 'jira-key-shape' is the right choice.

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