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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. The phrase 'Key discarded' hints at no persistence, but it does not state what the tool returns, whether it is read-only, or any side effects. It also fails to explain what happens to the other eight parameters, leaving critical behavioral details unspecified.

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 with the purpose, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks any structure that helps an agent understand usage or behavior, so while it has minimal verbiage, it fails to earn its place by omitting essential 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?

For a tool with nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is drastically incomplete. It does not cover return values, which parameter to use for a Jira key check, or any invocation details, leaving an agent without enough context to call the tool 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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the tool description does not clarify how the nine parameters relate to the stated Jira key shape purpose. The description actually misleads by focusing on a Jira key while the schema lists url, city, feed, etc., so it adds no value and even creates semantic confusion beyond the schema.

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 verb and resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), but it is vague about what constitutes a valid shape and does not differentiate from sibling tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. The input schema includes many unrelated properties (url, city, feed, etc.), which conflicts with the stated purpose and muddles the tool's actual scope.

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. There is no mention of scenarios, exclusions, or related shape-checking tools, so an agent cannot decide when to invoke this tool over a sibling like figma-url-shape or domain-shape.

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