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 only states 'Key discarded,' which hints at no side effects but omits whether the tool returns a boolean, performs network calls, or has other behavioral traits. Critical disclosure is missing.

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 terse (two short sentences), but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is under-specified, omitting how inputs map to the check and what the output is. Being short is not the same as being appropriately concise.

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 and no output schema, the description is grossly inadequate. It does not explain the purpose of each parameter, the expected input format for a Jira key, or the return value. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, but the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') are unrelated to Jira keys. The tool description adds nothing to clarify which parameter holds the Jira key, making the schema misleading rather than helpful. Description fails to compensate for the mismatch.

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.' It distinguishes from siblings by naming Jira. However, it fails to explain how the 9 varied parameters (ref, url, city, feed, etc.) relate to a Jira key, leaving the operational purpose ambiguous.

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 on when to use this tool versus sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. It implies use for Jira keys but provides no exclusions or alternatives. Context must be inferred, which is insufficient.

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