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

The phrase 'Key discarded' is a behavioral disclosure suggesting the input is not retained after the check. However, with no annotations and no mention of error behavior or side effects, the transparency is thin but not entirely absent.

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?

Two short sentences with the purpose front-loaded. There is no redundant filler, and the second sentence adds a relevant behavioral note.

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?

The description does not define what counts as a valid Jira issue key shape, what the tool returns, or how to supply the key given the nine optional parameters. Since there is no output schema and no annotations, this is insufficient for correct invocation.

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 descriptions cover all nine parameters, but the tool description's 'Jira issue key' does not map to any parameter in the schema (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query). This mismatch leaves an agent unsure which parameter contains the key, and several schema descriptions are unrelated to the stated purpose.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Jira issue key shape'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools. It could be clearer about what a valid 'shape' is, but the core purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as github-repo-shape or domain-shape, and no explicit when-not-to-use advice. The only usage signal is inferred from the tool name and purpose, so this falls below clear context.

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