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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It only says 'Key discarded,' implying no side effects, but does not clarify what happens on success/failure or whether any output is produced. Side effects are otherwise opaque.

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 (two sentences), but its brevity omits critical details such as the expected key format, how the input is supplied, and any output characteristics. It is not concise in a beneficial way; it under-specifies.

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 the tool's purpose, the description fails to explain what constitutes a valid Jira issue key, how the tool determines shape validity, or what the tool returns. There is no output schema, and the parameter list is a mismatched set of generic fields. The description is not self-sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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?

All nine parameters have generic descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL') that are unrelated to a Jira key. The descriptions even say they are 'discarded after the shape check,' but none of these parameters appears to be the Jira key itself. The schema provides no meaningful mapping between inputs and the tool's stated function.

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 purpose ('Check a Jira issue key shape') which distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools, but the schema contains no 'key' parameter, causing confusion about what input is actually used. The phrase 'Key discarded' hints at the intended input but it is absent from the schema.

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 the many sibling shape-checking tools (e.g., domain-shape, figma-url-shape). The description does not mention any condition or context that would make this tool the appropriate choice.

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