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

With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden but only says 'Key discarded'. It does not disclose whether the check is side-effect-free, what happens for invalid shapes, whether the key is returned or just a boolean, or whether any authentication/rate limits apply.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. It is concise, though the brevity comes at the cost of omitting the parameter mapping that another dimension requires.

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 nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is far too incomplete: it fails to identify the input parameter, the accepted Jira key format, or the return contract. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool from the provided definition.

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 schema exposes nine optional string parameters, none of which is named 'key' or described as a Jira issue key; descriptions cover unrelated concepts (Git ref, URL, city, feed, host, JSON, timezone, search text). The description does not map 'key' to any schema property, so an agent cannot know what to pass.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape' identifies the tool's core action and target, and distinguishes it from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, it leaves the accepted key pattern unstated and the 'Key discarded' phrase is ambiguous about whether the key is input or intermediate.

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?

No guidance is given about when to choose this tool over siblings such as github-repo-shape or figma-url-shape, or when to use a different validation tool. The only implied signal is the tool name, which is not enough to route an agent confidently.

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