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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Key discarded' which is ambiguous—it could mean the key input is discarded after checking, but there is no key parameter, and no mention of side effects, return format, or validation behavior for the other parameters. The description fails to disclose what actually happens.

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, which is concise in length, but it is under-specified. It does not earn its place because it provides almost no actionable information and omits critical context about the tool's actual scope.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly inadequate. An agent cannot determine which parameter to use, what the tool returns, or how it behaves. The description is far too minimal for the tool's complexity.

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?

While the schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for each parameter, the tool description does not map any of these parameters to the purported Jira key check. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema and actually misleads by implying a single key input, whereas the schema lists many unrelated inputs.

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 'Check a Jira issue key shape' but the input schema contains nine unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with no obvious relation to a Jira key. This creates confusion rather than clarity, and it does not differentiate from sibling shape-checking tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape.

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, no exclusions, and no context about the intended input format. The description leaves the agent to guess which parameter represents the Jira key or whether the tool accepts multiple inputs simultaneously.

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