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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden. It does reveal that the key is discarded, which is useful privacy-relevant behavior, but it omits any statement about return value, failure behavior, or whether other inputs are ignored.

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 with no filler: the first states the action and the second a relevant side effect. It is front-loaded and 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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, and the core input parameter is ambiguous. The description does not explain the accepted shape, return format, or which schema field to populate, so an agent cannot reliably invoke 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 refers to a Jira issue key, but the input schema exposes parameters such as ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, and query, none of which is described as a Jira key, and additionalProperties is false. An agent cannot determine which parameter should hold the key, so the description fails to add usable parameter semantics despite 100% schema coverage.

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 action and resource: it checks the shape of a Jira issue key. This distinguishes it from sibling shape-check tools such as github-repo-shape or domain-shape, though it does not spell out the expected key format.

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 rather than the many sibling format-checkers, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the phrase 'Check a Jira issue key shape.'

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