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

With no annotations and no description of side effects, return values, or error behavior, the tool's runtime behavior is almost completely opaque. The statement 'Key discarded' hints at non-persistence but does not clarify outcomes.

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, but it omits critical operational details. It is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficiently 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?

The tool is contextually incomplete: no output schema, no validation criteria, no parameter tying to the key, and no behavior description. An agent would not know what input to provide or what result to expect.

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?

Despite 100% schema description coverage, the nine parameters are generic strings unrelated to a Jira issue key (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query). None of them clearly maps to the key being checked, so the schema does not meaningfully support the described 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 identifies the action as checking a Jira issue key shape, but it does not define what a valid shape is or which parameter actually contains the key. The phrase 'Key discarded' is confusing and leaves the intended behavior 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 is provided about when to use this tool versus sibling tools like domain-shape, github-repo-shape, or wiki-title-ok. There is no indication of expected inputs, conditions, or why this tool should be preferred.

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