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

With no annotations provided, the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The statement 'Key discarded' hints that the input is not persisted, but there is no mention of whether the tool makes network calls, whether it only validates locally, or what it returns. The behavioral information is too thin to be reliable.

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 very short and contains no filler, which is concise, but it is under-specified to the point of losing utility. 'Key discarded' is a useful note, yet the overall structure provides no how-to context and leaves too much unstated.

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 a large and heterogeneous input schema with no output schema and no annotations. The description does not state which input is the Jira key, what 'shape' means, what the result looks like, or when this tool should be preferred. An agent cannot reliably select or invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema's parameters each have their own descriptions, giving high schema coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-level meaning, and importantly it fails to identify which parameter represents the Jira key, so the agent must guess among ref, text, id, or path. The baseline of 3 applies since the schema already documents the parameters reasonably.

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 and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' However, it never defines what a valid shape is, and the input schema contains many unrelated parameters like url, city, feed, and json with no indication of which one carries the Jira key. This ambiguity makes the purpose only vaguely clear.

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, figma-url-shape, or domain-shape. No alternatives, exclusions, or contextual triggers are mentioned, leaving the selection entirely to the agent.

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