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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. 'Key discarded' discloses a meaningful behavioral trait: the input is not retained after the check. Still, it does not describe the return value, whether any external call is made, or what 'discarded' operationally means, so the disclosure is better than nothing but incomplete.

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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. The second sentence about discarding the key adds useful behavioral information. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential parameter and output details, so it is concise but under-specified.

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 nine parameters, no required parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is not sufficiently complete. It does not explain which parameter carries the Jira key, what the check result looks like, or what 'shape' means. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly without additional context.

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 input schema contains nine parameters, all with descriptions, but they appear unrelated to Jira key validation—url, city, feed, json, zone, query, etc. The description refers to a 'key' but no parameter named 'key' exists; the closest candidate, 'ref', is described as a Git ref name. This mismatch leaves an agent unable to confidently determine which parameter 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 clearly identifies the action ('Check') and the resource ('a Jira issue key shape'), and the tool name distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools like domain-shape and github-repo-shape. However, it does not specify what a valid shape is or which input parameter holds the key, leaving some ambiguity.

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 intended use is implied by the tool name and phrasing: use it when you need to verify whether a string matches a Jira issue key shape. There is no explicit guidance about when not to use it or which sibling tool might be a better alternative, so the usage context is only implicit.

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