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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the transparency burden. It discloses one useful behavior—'Key discarded' signals no retention—but does not state the return format, side effects, or whether the check is local/non-mutating. Partial disclosure, not a complete behavioral profile.

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?

Two short sentences with the core purpose first and the retention behavior second; zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 tool has seven parameters, a one-line purpose, and no output schema. An agent cannot determine what to pass for a Jira key or what the check will return, so the definition leaves critical call-construction details unresolved.

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 descriptions cover each parameter syntactically, so the baseline is 3, but the tool description never connects any parameter to the Jira issue key. Seven unrelated-looking properties (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) exist, and none is explicitly designated as the key input. The description adds no mapping, effectively compensating poorly for the schema's mismatch with the 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 names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Jira issue key shape'), clearly distinguishing it from shape-checking siblings like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. However, it does not identify which input parameter carries the key, leaving a small but real 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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative tools are referenced. Usage can only be inferred from the name and first sentence; there is no mention of prerequisites or comparison to siblings.

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