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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Key discarded', which hints at a side effect, but gives no details about return values, error behavior, or side effects beyond discarding. It does not clarify what 'shape' means or what a valid key looks like. The schema mentions 'no disk access' for path, but that is not reinforced in the description.

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 (two sentences), but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It is front-loaded with the purpose, but it omits essential operational details. The brevity does not earn its keep because it leaves critical information missing.

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?

Given 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. The agent has no idea which parameter to supply, what the tool returns, or how to interpret the result. This is inadequate for a multi-parameter tool, especially with no structured metadata to fall back on.

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?

While schema description coverage is 100%, the description adds no value in linking parameters to the tool's purpose. The 'ref' parameter is described as a 'Git ref name', not a Jira key, so the mapping is unclear. The description does not clarify which parameter is the key to check, leaving the agent to guess. It fails to compensate for the schema's lack of Jira-specific context.

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 verb and resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), but it fails to identify which of the 9 input parameters holds the key. The parameters are unrelated to Jira keys (ref, url, city, feed, etc.), making the purpose ambiguous. It does not distinguish from sibling shape-checking tools 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of when to prefer it over other shape validators, nor any exclusions or conditions. The description is a single sentence with no context for selection.

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