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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It reveals only that the key is 'discarded' after checking, but does not state what constitutes a valid shape, whether validation is local or networked, what it returns on success or failure, or any side effects.

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 short and front-loaded with the main action, and the 'Key discarded' note is a genuine behavioral detail. But for a 9-parameter tool with no output schema, this terseness crosses into under-specification.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, nine optional parameters, and no connection between the description and the schema, an agent cannot determine what to pass or what result to expect. The tool is effectively underspecified for reliable invocation.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but none of the nine properties (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) is named or described as a Jira issue key. The description references a 'key' yet does not say which parameter receives it, leaving invocation ambiguous despite high 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 uses a specific verb ('Check') and names the exact resource ('a Jira issue key shape'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or figma-url-shape. However, it is largely a restatement of the tool name with no additional elaboration, so it stops short of a 5.

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 on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape/check tools, no prerequisites, and no alternatives. The only usage signal is implied by the phrase '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.