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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. "Key discarded" explicitly indicates that the key is not retained, and "Check" suggests a read-only operation. Still, it does not disclose side effects, return behavior, or failure modes.

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 both sentences carry meaningful information: purpose and disposal behavior. No wasted words, though the brevity contributes to the lack of necessary context.

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 seven parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far from sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The agent cannot determine required inputs, what output to expect, or how the Jira key relates to the schema fields.

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 input schema has descriptions for all seven properties, but none of them clearly identifies a "Jira issue key" parameter. The description adds no mapping between "key" and any schema field, leaving an agent uncertain which value to pass.

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 clearly states a specific action and resource: "Check a Jira issue key shape." This distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or figma-url-shape. However, it does not clarify what the check returns or what a valid shape is.

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 such as github-repo-shape or normalize-url. The description implies it is for Jira keys but gives no context, exclusions, or prerequisites.

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