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 states 'Key discarded' but there is no key parameter, and it fails to describe return values, side effects, error behavior, or whether the tool performs any network access. The behavior is entirely opaque.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it is under-specified and misleading. It does not earn its place because it provides no actionable information beyond what the tool name already implies, and it lacks any structural guidance for the parameters.

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?

For a tool with 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is grossly insufficient. It does not explain the tool's scope, return format, invocation method, or how to handle the diverse parameter set, making correct usage impossible.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no parameter meaning, and the schema parameters themselves are unrelated to the stated Jira key purpose. For example, 'city' and 'feed' have no connection to a Jira key shape, so the description does not clarify which parameter (if any) holds the key or how the check works.

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 says 'Check a Jira issue key shape' but the input schema has no parameter for a Jira key—it includes ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query. This is misleading and essentially restates the tool name without clarifying what the tool actually does or how it differs from siblings 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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or selection criteria for the 9 parameters, leaving the agent with no clue about the appropriate use case.

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