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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions that the key is 'discarded,' giving minimal insight into side effects. It does not describe return values, error behavior, or whether other parameters are validated. The description is nearly silent on behavior beyond the core check.

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 with two sentences that avoid unnecessary words. However, it is under-specified rather than concisely complete. It lacks structure (e.g., no examples or parameter explanations) that would help an agent, but it does not waste space. The brevity is acceptable for a shape-checker, but it misses critical usage context.

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 has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotation coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It provides no guidance on which parameter to use, what constitutes a valid Jira key, or what the result looks like. The mismatch between the description (Jira key) and schema (unrelated fields like city, feed, zone) further reduces completeness, leaving an agent unable to invoke it correctly.

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 coverage is 100% for all 9 parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail, and it fails to link any schema field (e.g., 'ref' or 'url') to the Jira key concept. While the schema descriptions exist, they are generic and don't relate to the tool's purpose, so the description's lack of semantic mapping is not penalized beyond baseline.

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 clear verb and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This distinguishes it as a shape-checker among siblings. However, the input schema lists 9 unrelated parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) with no parameter that obviously holds a Jira key, creating ambiguity about how to invoke the tool. The phrase 'Key discarded' suggests the key is not retained, but it does not clarify which input is the key.

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 alternative shape-checkers like domain-shape, github-repo-shape, or figma-url-shape. The description lacks any mention of conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based solely on the name and terse purpose statement.

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