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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the key is discarded, which is a minor detail about data handling. It does not explain what 'shape check' means, what a valid Jira key looks like, whether it returns a boolean, throws an error, or what happens on invalid input. The description is too thin to convey the tool's actual behavior.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise and front-loaded. However, it omits critical information about the tool's multi-input schema, so it sacrifices completeness for brevity. Still, the structure is clean and easy to parse, earning a 4 for conciseness.

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 tool is complex (9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations), yet the description provides almost no context. It fails to reconcile the Jira-key purpose with the diverse schema fields, leaving an agent unable to determine what input to provide for a Jira key check or how the other fields relate. The description is severely incomplete for the tool's actual scope.

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 descriptions cover 100% of parameters, each with a brief note (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so it relies entirely on the schema. Since schema coverage is high, the baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description does not enhance understanding beyond the schema.

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 states a specific verb ('Check') and a specific resource ('Jira issue key shape'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape-check tools like 'domain-shape' or 'github-repo-shape'. However, the input schema lists 9 unrelated fields (city, feed, host, json, etc.) with no apparent connection to Jira keys, so the purpose is not fully aligned with the tool's actual interface, creating ambiguity.

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 any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, nor does it reference any sibling tools. An agent would have to infer from the name and sibling list that this is for Jira key format validation, but no explicit usage direction is given.

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