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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden of explaining side effects and behavior. 'Key discarded' hints that the input is not retained, but the description does not say whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, or whether it performs any external lookup or validation beyond shape checking.

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 short and front-loaded, but it omits essential information. It is concise in word count yet lacks the minimal structural details needed to understand how to call the tool or interpret its result.

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 nine optional parameters and no output schema, the description does not provide enough context to know which parameter to use, what input format is expected, or what the tool returns. It is incomplete for reliable agent use.

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 descriptions are generic and do not map to a Jira issue key: ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query are all unrelated to the stated purpose. Despite 100% schema description coverage, no parameter is described as the Jira key, so the parameter semantics are effectively useless for this tool.

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 action and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' However, the input schema contains no 'key' parameter, so it is unclear which of the nine unrelated optional fields actually supplies the Jira key. The phrase 'Key discarded' adds ambiguity rather than resolving how the tool is invoked.

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?

The description gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of sibling tools such as domain-shape, figma-url-shape, or github-repo-shape. It also does not mention any scenarios, prerequisites, or context where a Jira key shape check would be appropriate.

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