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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects. 'Key discarded' is vague and contradictory: if the key is discarded, it is unclear what value is checked or what the tool actually does with the 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?

The description is extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. The second sentence introduces confusion instead of clarifying behavior, so the brevity does not serve the agent.

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 description omits the essential input mapping: there is no 'key' parameter in the schema, so the agent cannot determine how to pass the Jira key. It also gives no information about return values, errors, or expected output.

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?

Although the schema descriptions cover all 9 parameters, none of them represents a Jira issue key, and the tool description adds no parameter mapping. The parameter descriptions (url, city, host, json, path, zone, query) appear unrelated to the stated purpose, making them misleading for this tool.

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 action and target ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), but the follow-up 'Key discarded' and the absence of any key input parameter make it unclear what is actually checked. It only partially distinguishes sibling shape tools by naming 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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives like domain-shape, github-repo-shape, or validate-json. The description provides no use-case context or selection criteria.

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