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

No annotations are present, so the description carries full burden. It only notes 'Key discarded,' which is ambiguous and does not disclose whether the tool makes network calls, is read-only, or what happens to the other input parameters.

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 extremely terse (two short sentences), but this is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It omits essential information about parameter usage and expected behavior.

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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain how the parameters relate to the Jira key check, what the tool returns, or any prerequisites.

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 are generic and none clearly correspond to a 'Jira key.' The description does not map the 'key' concept to any of the 9 parameters, leaving the agent unsure which input to provide. The 100% schema coverage does not compensate for the lack of integration with the tool's purpose.

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?

States a clear verb ('check') and a specific resource ('Jira issue key shape'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, 'shape' is undefined, leaving ambiguity about what is validated.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any context, exclusions, or relationships to other shape-checking tools.

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