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

The description mentions 'Key discarded' and the schema notes several parameters are 'discarded after the check', which is a behavioral disclosure. However, with no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it fails to explain what 'shape check' means, what constitutes a valid Jira key, or what the tool returns. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the 9-parameter schema is a significant transparency gap.

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 (two sentences), which is concise, but it omits critical information. The 'Key discarded' phrase is repeated in the schema for multiple parameters, creating redundancy. The structure is front-loaded with the purpose, but the purpose is undermined by the schema mismatch.

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 9 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a stated purpose that doesn't match the schema, the description is severely incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameter to use for a Jira key, what the tool returns, or how it relates to sibling shape-checking tools. The description provides almost no useful context for correct 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, and the schema itself is confusing: none of the 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) relate to a Jira issue key. The description's 'Key discarded' doesn't map to any parameter named 'key'. The description fails to compensate for the schema's apparent mismatch with the tool's stated purpose.

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 says 'Check a Jira issue key shape' but the input schema has 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query, etc.) with no Jira key parameter. The verb 'Check' and resource 'Jira issue key shape' are clear, but the schema contradicts the stated purpose, making it misleading for an agent trying to select this tool.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The description doesn't mention any conditions, exclusions, or alternatives. The sibling list includes domain-shape, github-repo-shape, figma-url-shape, and wiki-title-ok, which are similar shape-checking tools, but no differentiation is provided.

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