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

The only disclosed behavior is 'Key discarded', which indicates no storage but does not state whether the check is read-only, whether it makes network calls, or what the response looks like. With no annotations, this leaves major aspects of behavior undisclosed.

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 concise, but its brevity sacrifices necessary information. The second sentence 'Key discarded' is unclear because no parameter is named 'key', so it does not fully earn its place.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and zero annotations, the description is far too thin for the agent to invoke correctly. It does not explain how to provide the Jira key, what shape validation returns, or which inputs matter.

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%, but the tool description does not map any of the nine parameters to the concept of a 'key'. It uses 'key' without naming an input, adding no binding between the described purpose and the actual parameters.

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 action ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), but the input schema has no parameter representing a Jira key, so an agent cannot tell which input to use. It also does not differentiate from sibling shape-check tools by scope or parameter.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. It lacks prerequisites, alternatives, or conditions for calling it.

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