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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It does explicitly say 'Key discarded', which is a useful privacy-related trait, and 'Check' implies a non-mutating operation. However, it does not describe the return value, failure modes, or whether any external Jira call is made, so behavioral transparency is incomplete.

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 two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Every sentence contributes something: one states the purpose, the other states an important behavioral trait. It is concise, though the brevity contributes to the broader incompleteness.

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?

This is a 7-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and many sibling tools, yet the description only provides a one-line purpose and a discard note. It fails to explain what a valid Jira issue key shape is, which parameter to use, what the result looks like, or when to choose this tool over alternatives. This is far below 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?

The schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no meaningful mapping between the Jira key concept and any of the seven parameters. The params are described as git refs, URLs, city names, RSS feeds, hosts, JSON, and paths—none of which the description connects to a Jira issue key—so an agent cannot reliably pick the correct field.

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 ('Check') and a specific resource ('Jira issue key shape'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, 'shape' is slightly vague about whether this is a pure validation or normalization, and the schema offers no obvious parameter for the Jira key, which dampens 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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus sibling shape/validation tools, nor does it state what kind of input should be passed. The description never says 'Use this when you have a candidate Jira issue key to validate' or names an alternative to avoid, leaving the agent to infer context.

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