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

With no annotations and a terse description, the tool's behavior is opaque. It does not state what happens on success/failure, whether it returns a boolean, throws, or has side effects. 'Key discarded' hints at no return but is insufficient.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure. It provides no breakdown of parameters, expected inputs, or outputs, making it minimally acceptable but not well-organized.

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 complexity of nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose in context, how parameters interact, or what the caller should expect, leaving critical gaps for an agent.

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 parameter descriptions are generic and largely irrelevant to Jira keys (e.g., 'city', 'feed', 'zone'). They do not clarify how each parameter relates to the Jira key check, and the descriptions add no meaning beyond the parameter names—some are misleading (e.g., 'ref' as 'Git ref name' in a Jira context).

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 shape'), but it does not indicate which of the nine parameters holds the key, leaving ambiguity about the tool's actual input. It also mentions 'Key discarded' without specifying the output, reducing clarity.

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 validation tools (e.g., browser-url-ok, file-path-ok, validate-json). There is no mention of context, alternatives, or selection criteria.

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