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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It discloses only that the key is discarded, but does not state whether the check is read-only, local, what happens on invalid shape, or what the tool returns. This is insufficient for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 two short sentences with the main action front-loaded and the disposal behavior separated cleanly. There is no filler; the brevity, however, contributes to the overall incompleteness rather than being a model of concise completeness.

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?

Given 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It does not specify which parameter to use, what the tool returns, what a valid Jira key shape looks like, or how errors are reported. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool from the 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?

The description refers to a 'key,' but the input schema has no 'key' property. The closest parameter, 'ref,' is described as a 'Git ref name,' which conflicts with a Jira issue key. With 9 optional parameters and no required ones, the agent cannot reliably determine which parameter should hold the Jira 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 states a specific action and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape and domain-shape. However, it does not define what 'shape' means or what validity criteria are used, so it stops short of full clarity.

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 sibling tools, no alternatives mentioned, and no indication of prerequisites or typical invocation context. The intended usage is only implied by the tool name and resource.

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