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

With no annotations present, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds one useful detail, 'Key discarded,' but it does not state what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, or what constitutes a valid or invalid Jira key shape. Key behavioral expectations are left unexplained.

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 front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Both sentences are brief, and there is no wasted wording, although 'Key discarded' is ambiguous without more context.

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 definition is incomplete for a seven-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations. It omits the parameter mapping, validity criteria, return type, and error behavior, leaving an agent unable to reliably invoke 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 schema documents all seven string parameters, so baseline coverage is high, but none of them is a 'key' or 'issue key' parameter. The description gives no mapping between 'Jira issue key' and any schema field such as ref, url, city, feed, host, json, or path, so an agent cannot know which field to populate.

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.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose and, combined with the tool name jira-key-shape, distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain-shape and github-repo-shape. However, the phrase 'Key discarded' is cryptic and does not clarify what 'shape' validation entails.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools or conditions such as 'use github-repo-shape for GitHub repositories.' The only implied context comes from the tool name, which is not enough for an agent to route correctly.

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