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

The only behavioral disclosure is 'Key discarded', implying the input is not persisted. However, it doesn't describe what the shape check entails, whether it makes network calls, or what the return value looks like. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and fails to disclose enough.

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 (two sentences), which is concise, but it lacks structure and essential details. It's not front-loaded with actionable guidance; it just states the action and discards the input.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameter to use for the Jira key, how the check behaves, or what success looks like. This is inadequate for correct invocation.

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?

All 9 parameters have schema descriptions with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, and the mapping between parameters and a Jira key is unclear—none are named 'key' or 'issue'. The schema descriptions themselves are the only useful part.

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 the tool 'checks a Jira issue key shape', which is a specific action on a specific resource, but it doesn't specify which of the 9 parameters represents the key, nor does it differentiate from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. The purpose is ambiguous in practical application.

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 given on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-checking tools. It doesn't state that it's for Jira issue references or provide any exclusions. The usage context is left entirely to inference.

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