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

The description discloses one behavioral trait: 'Key discarded.' This indicates the key input is not retained. With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden, but it says nothing about side effects, permissions, return values, or whether the tool is read-only. The single behavioral note is insufficient for a tool with such a broad schema.

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—two sentences totaling ten words. It is concise but under-specified, omitting critical information such as which parameter to use. While brevity is positive, it sacrifices the minimal information needed to operate the tool effectively.

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 nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what the 'shape check' entails, what the result looks like, how to select the appropriate parameter, or any constraints. The mismatch between the described purpose and the schema makes it nearly impossible for an agent to use 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?

The description does not map its stated purpose to any of the nine parameters. It never identifies which parameter represents the Jira key, and the schema descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL', 'City name') are unrelated to Jira. Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no clarity on how to invoke the tool for its intended purpose, leaving the agent confused.

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 it from siblings like 'github-repo-shape' or 'domain-shape'. However, the input schema does not include any parameter explicitly labeled as a Jira key, creating a mismatch between the stated purpose and the actual parameters an agent must provide.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools. An agent is left to infer that it should be used for Jira key shape validation, but no explicit routing advice is given.

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