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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the key is 'discarded' (no retention), but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output or return value is, or any side effects. For a validation tool, this is minimal behavioral context.

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 sentence, which is concise but under-specified. It omits essential information, so this is not good conciseness—it is simply too short to be useful.

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 has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a one-sentence description. An agent cannot determine which parameter is the Jira key, the expected input format, or the result of the check. This is completely inadequate for correct invocation.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description fails to identify which of the 9 parameters holds the Jira key. The schema parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) are unrelated to Jira and do not clarify this. The description adds no parameter guidance and does not compensate for the ambiguity, making it hard for an agent to know what to pass.

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 verb ('Check') and resource ('Jira issue key'), and 'shape' implies format validation. It is not a tautology and does mention Jira, which distinguishes it from some siblings, but it is vague about what 'shape' entails (e.g., expected pattern like PROJ-123). It lacks detail on the exact purpose or criteria.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternative shape-check siblings (e.g., github-repo-shape, domain-shape). There are no conditions, exclusions, or mentions of alternatives, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.

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