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

The description discloses that the key is discarded, which is a useful privacy note, but says nothing about what the tool returns on success or failure, how strict the shape check is, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden and does not meet it.

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 only two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. It is concise, though it sacrifices essential information that would be needed for reliable invocation.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this two-sentence description is far from sufficient. The mismatch between the stated Jira-key purpose and the unrelated parameter set is a critical gap, and the tool cannot be reliably invoked from this definition alone.

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?

Although every schema parameter has its own description, the core concept of a Jira key is not mapped to any of the nine parameters. The description adds no parameter-level guidance, and the schema contains no obvious 'key' property, leaving the correct 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 description clearly names the action and resource: checking the shape of a Jira issue key. It is distinguishable from sibling shape tools because it specifically targets Jira issue keys. However, it does not mention the return value or how the key relates to the schema parameters.

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 use this tool versus alternatives like domain-shape, figma-url-shape, or github-repo-shape. The description states only the core action, leaving the agent to infer the full usage context.

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