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

The description discloses an important behavioral trait: the key is discarded after the check. With no annotations present, this gives some transparency about data handling, but it does not describe return values, error behavior, or whether the tool performs any side effects beyond validation.

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?

Two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded and the discard behavior earns its place. This is appropriately concise, even if it underspecifies some details.

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?

The tool has a seven-property input schema, no output schema, and no annotations, leaving a lot unexplained. The description does not clarify which property carries the Jira key, what constits a valid shape, or what the caller receives. It falls short of what an agent needs to invoke it 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?

All seven input properties have schema descriptions, so schema coverage is high and the description does not need to restate them. However, the description's 'Jira issue key' does not map clearly to any parameter name, since no parameter named 'key' or 'issue' exists. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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: it checks the shape of a Jira issue key. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like github-repo-shape or normal-ize-url, though it does not specify what the check returns. The phrase "Key discarded" hints at input disposal but is slightly terse.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings like domain-shape or wiki-title-ok. The implied use case is 'when you need to validate a Jira issue key shape,' but no exclusions or routing conditions are stated.

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