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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the key is discarded and that file path checking involves no disk access, but it never says what the tool returns, whether it validates by pattern or lookup, or what side effects (if any) occur beyond discarding input.

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?

Two short sentences, with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. The 'Key discarded' note earns its place as a behavioral disclosure rather than being buried in 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?

Despite the high schema coverage, the tool is highly incomplete in context: no output schema, no annotation, nine optional parameters, and no explanation of how the key is captured or what 'shape check' yields. An agent cannot reliably determine required input or expected output from this definition.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and each parameter has its own schema-level description. However, the description itself adds no guidance linking these nine parameters to the 'Jira key shape' purpose, leaving the agent to guess which parameter is the actual key.

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 resource and action: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This hints at a validation tool similar to sibling shape checkers. However, clarity is undermined because the input schema has no 'key' parameter and its nine parameters appear unrelated to Jira keys.

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 siblings like github-repo-shape, domain-shape, or validate-json. The description implies usage through its purpose sentence but offers no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing.

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