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

With no annotations, the description does provide at least one behavioral signal: 'Key discarded' plus repeated 'discarded after the check' text indicates non-persistence. It does not disclose output behavior, failure modes, or whether any network/external access occurs, so the disclosure is only partial.

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 only two sentences and is front-loaded with the core purpose. The second sentence is concise and adds the non-retention detail without filler.

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?

Although the parameters have individual descriptions, the tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a lot of optional inputs, so the description must explain how to identify the Jira key and what the tool returns. It does neither, leaving an agent unable to reliably 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 description coverage is 100%, which sets the baseline at 3. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, and more importantly, it does not map 'Jira key' to any of the nine optional properties, leaving ambiguity about what should be passed.

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 verb and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This distinguishes it clearly from sibling tools like github-repo-shape and wiki-title-ok. It is slightly less clear operationally because no parameter is explicitly identified as the Jira 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the other shape/validation siblings, nor about what input source or format is expected. The agent must infer use from the name alone.

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