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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Key discarded' hints at side-effect-free operation but does not explain what the tool returns, whether it performs network access, or why the schema includes unrelated fields like 'city' and 'feed'. The description is too sparse to convey any meaningful behavioral traits.

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 (one sentence) but not structured or informative. It front-loads the purpose but then introduces an unexplained 'Key discarded' statement. It is under-specification rather than concise efficiency, as it omits essential routing information.

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 complexity (9 parameters, all optional, no output schema) and the presence of many sibling shape-checking tools, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameter is the Jira key, what the output format is, or how to avoid misusing the tool. The definition fails to cover the basic invocation contract.

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 descriptions are present (100% coverage), giving a baseline of 3, but the description adds no mapping between any parameter and the Jira key concept. The parameter descriptions themselves are generic ('discarded after the shape check') and do not clarify which one holds the key or how to supply it, so the value added beyond the schema is minimal.

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 and resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape') but fails to connect that purpose to any of the nine input parameters, none of which are labeled as a Jira key. The mismatch between the stated purpose and the schema makes it unclear what the agent should pass as the key, so the tool's actual function 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'github-repo-shape' or 'domain-shape'. The description gives no context, exclusions, or mention of sibling tools, leaving the agent without any decision support for selection.

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