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

The only behavioral hint is 'Key discarded', which suggests no persistence, but the description does not disclose whether the tool returns a boolean, throws on invalid shape, or performs any validation actions. With no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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: 'Check a Jira issue key shape. Key discarded.' It avoids unnecessary words and is easy to read, though the brevity contributes to ambiguity.

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 description is severely incomplete for a tool with nine optional parameters and no output schema. It does not specify which parameter holds the key, what the success/failure response looks like, or any relevant edge cases.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description itself adds no parameter semantics, and the schema descriptions are often unrelated to Jira keys (e.g., city, feed, zone), making it hard to map a Jira key to any parameter.

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 the tool checks a Jira issue key shape, but it is unclear which of the nine optional parameters should contain the key. The phrase 'Key discarded' adds confusion rather than clarifying the input or output.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus sibling shape-checking tools like github-repo-shape or figma-url-shape. There is no mention of alternatives or selection criteria.

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