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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It only states that the key is discarded, but it does not disclose what the tool returns for valid/invalid shapes, whether any side effects occur, or how errors are surfaced.

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 one short front-loaded sentence with no filler. However, it is so terse that it omits essential input and output information, making the conciseness more under-specified than effective.

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?

With nine parameters and no output schema, the description and parameter descriptions do not explain what shape is expected, which parameter carries the key, what the return value looks like, or what happens on failure. An agent cannot confidently invoke this tool from the provided context.

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 has nine unrelated optional string parameters with generic descriptions such as 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite', and 'City name for a public weather hint'. None of them clearly represents the Jira issue key that the description refers to, so the descriptions do not help an agent choose the correct input.

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 object: checking the shape of a Jira issue key, and the 'Key discarded' note clarifies it is validation-only. This is distinct from nearby sibling tools like normalize-url or validate-json, so an agent can identify the tool's purpose.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github-repo-shape, domain-shape, or wiki-title-ok. There is no mention of prerequisites, expected input source, or when not to use it.

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