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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose that the key is discarded, suggesting a no-retention, non-persistent validation behavior. However, it does not state the return value, failure modes, or whether any other input data is retained.

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 extremely concise, with two short sentences and no filler. The first sentence states the action and resource, and the second adds a behavioral note. Every word earns its place.

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?

This is a 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description only covers purpose and disposal behavior. It omits the expected return value, the shape rules, error behavior, and which parameter should receive the Jira issue key. The description is far too thin for the tool's complexity and mismatched schema.

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 the schema has 100% description coverage for all nine parameters, the tool description's central concept, the Jira issue key, does not map to any parameter in the schema. There is no 'key' or 'jiraKey' field, so an agent cannot determine which input to populate. The description adds confusion rather than clarifying parameter selection.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: check the shape of a Jira issue key. It distinguishes this tool from sibling shape checkers like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, it does not define what a valid Jira issue key shape is, so the purpose is clear but slightly under-specified.

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 gives no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. It only states what the tool does, which implies a use case but does not help an agent choose among sibling validators.

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