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

No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'Key discarded' without explaining behavior, side effects, permissions, or return value. The tool's runtime behavior is completely 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 brief, but brevity sacrifices critical information. It provides no operational detail and is too terse 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 lacks essential context: the input parameter for the Jira key is missing, and the purpose conflicts with the parameter names. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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?

Each parameter has a description, but they are generic and inconsistent with the stated purpose (e.g., 'Git ref name' for ref, 'City name' for city). The descriptions fail to clarify how these parameters relate to checking a Jira key shape.

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 it checks a 'Jira issue key shape', but none of the 9 parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) correspond to a Jira key. The purpose is unclear and the tool's actual input is ambiguous.

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 or how it differs from sibling tools. The description gives no context for selecting it over similar tools like 'domain-shape' or 'validate-json'.

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