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

The only behavioral disclosure, 'Key discarded,' is already reflected in the schema parameter descriptions which state 'discarded after the shape check.' With no annotations and no output schema, the description doesn't reveal what the tool returns, whether it performs any network/file access for the Jira check, or any safety implications.

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 and has no filler words, which is hollow conciseness. The second sentence repeats a behavior already stated in every parameter description, so the structure doesn't earn its place. It could be better organized around identifying the key parameter and the output.

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 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from complete. It doesn't say which parameter is the Jira key, what a valid 'shape' looks like, or what the tool returns. An agent has insufficient context to use the tool correctly on its own.

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%, giving a baseline of 3, but the tool description doesn't map the concept of a 'key' to any actual parameter. Instead it introduces a term absent from the schema, adding confusion rather than compensating for anything the schema lacks.

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.' However, no parameter in the input schema corresponds to a Jira key; the 9 parameters are ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query. An agent cannot determine which input carries the key, so the purpose is unclear despite the clear phrasing.

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 versus the many sibling shape-checkers such as github-repo-shape, domain-shape, or figma-url-shape. There is no mention of prerequisites, alternative behavior, or the intended context for choosing this tool.

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