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

The phrase 'Key discarded' suggests the input is not retained, but there is no mention of other behavioral traits such as validation rules, error handling, or side effects. Without annotations, the description carries the burden and fails to provide meaningful transparency.

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 concise at only two sentences, with no fluff. However, the structure is minimal and could benefit from a clearer separation of purpose and behavior.

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 tool has 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits essential details about which parameter to provide, what constitutes a valid Jira key shape, and what the tool returns or implies.

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 explain how any of the nine parameters relate to the Jira key shape check. The schema descriptions are generic and unrelated (e.g., 'City name for a public weather hint'), and the description itself adds no clarification, leaving parameter usage entirely ambiguous.

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 action and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This clearly identifies the tool's purpose. However, it does not specify which parameter contains the Jira key or what shape criteria are applied, slightly reducing clarity.

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool over siblings like 'domain-shape' or 'github-repo-shape', nor does it indicate the appropriate input format or context.

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