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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. 'Key discarded.' does add a useful statelessness signal, but it omits what shape checking returns, whether it validates against a pattern, and what happens on invalid input.

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. It uses no filler, but the brevity crosses into under-specification because the tool has 9 parameters and no mapping to the described key.

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?

With no annotations, no required parameters, and no output schema, the description is now need much more context: which parameter receives the Jira key, what a valid Jira key shape is, what result is returned, and what 'discarded' means. An agent cannot confidently invoke the tool with this description alone.

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?

The input schema documents each of the 9 parameters, but the description does not connect 'Jira issue key' to any of them. No parameter is named or described as a Jira key, and additionalProperties is false, so an agent cannot pass a key as an undeclared property.

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'. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling shape-checkers such as 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 given about when to use this tool, when not to use it, or which sibling tool should be preferred in other contexts. With many similar shape-checking tools, this omission leaves the agent to guess.

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