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

The phrase 'Key discarded' hints at no side effects, but the description does not disclose what the tool returns on success or failure, whether it throws errors, or how it handles invalid input. With no annotations, this lack of behavioral detail leaves the agent guessing.

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 brief but poorly structured; it fails to define the expected input format or the term 'shape.' While brevity is good, the lack of clarity makes it ineffective, and the mismatch with the schema compounds the confusion.

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 the ambiguous schema and lack of output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine how to call this tool, what input to provide, or what to expect in return, making it nearly unusable without external knowledge.

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 schema lists nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with descriptions that are unrelated to Jira issue keys (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint'). None of these parameters seem intended for a Jira key, so the schema is actively misleading and provides no meaningful guidance on which parameter to use.

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 object ('Check a Jira issue key shape') but leaves the meaning of 'shape' undefined and does not clarify how the key should be provided. It is too vague for an agent to know what constitutes a valid input or output.

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 on when to use this tool compared to sibling shape-checking tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. The description does not mention any alternatives or conditions that would make this tool the appropriate choice.

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