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

The claim 'Key discarded' implies a side-effect-free check, but no 'key' parameter exists in the schema. With no annotations to fill the gap, the description actively obscures rather than discloses the tool's actual behavior and side effects.

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 text is brief and front-loaded, but it is too minimal to be useful. The second sentence ('Key discarded') does not earn its place because it refers to an input that is not present in the schema.

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?

With nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description leaves critical context missing: which parameter carries the Jira key, what output is returned, and what validation rule defines an acceptable shape.

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 does not map any of the nine schema parameters to its purpose and introduces a phantom 'key' argument. The individual parameter descriptions mention discarding and no disk access, but they are unrelated to Jira keys, leaving invocation ambiguous.

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 phrase 'Check a Jira issue key shape' states a high-level intent, but it never identifies the input to use or defines what a valid 'shape' is. The schema contains no 'key' parameter, so the purpose is ambiguous despite the tool name.

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 given about when to choose this tool over sibling shape-checking tools such as domain-shape or github-repo-shape. There is also no mention of prerequisites, alternatives, or when not to use it.

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