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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does state that the input key is discarded, which is useful, but it says nothing about the result returned, whether external calls occur, or how valid and invalid keys are handled.

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 two sentences are tightly written and front-load the purpose with no filler. However, the definition is so terse that it omits necessary context; a sentence mapping the expected input or output would not be waste.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, and the input schema appears mismatched with the stated purpose. The description omits shape rules, return value, and routing guidance relative to the many sibling shape tools, so an agent cannot confidently invoke or interpret the tool.

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 description names no parameter, and the schema exposes seven unrelated properties (url, city, feed, host, json, path) with no 'key' field. The only plausible candidate, 'ref', is described as a Git ref name rather than a Jira key, so an agent cannot reliably determine what 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 states a specific action ('Check') and resource ('a Jira issue key shape'), so the tool's core purpose is clear. It distinguishes itself from sibling shape tools by explicitly referencing Jira issue keys, though it does not describe the expected output or validation criteria.

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 siblings like github-repo-shape, domain-shape, or figma-url-shape. The phrase 'Key discarded' hints at a non-retaining behavior but gives no context for choosing this tool or exclusions.

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