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

The phrase 'Key discarded' discloses one behavioral trait: the key is not retained. However, with no annotations present and no output schema, the description still leaves unspecified whether this is read-only, what it returns, and what happens on an invalid shape.

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 'Key discarded' earns its place as a meaningful side-effect note. This is appropriately concise for the amount of information actually conveyed.

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?

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the full burden of explaining how to invoke it and what to expect. It neither identifies the input field for the Jira key nor describes the return value, leaving an agent unable to call it confidently.

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 adds no parameter-level meaning. Although the input schema has field descriptions, none of the seven properties (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) is explicitly identified as the Jira key, so the agent cannot determine which argument to supply.

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 names the action 'check' and the resource 'Jira issue key shape', which distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. However, it never connects the Jira key to any actual input field, so the purpose is clear but the invocation mapping is not.

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?

The usage context is implied by the resource name: use this when you need to validate a Jira issue key's shape. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no alternatives mentioned, and no exclusions relative to sibling shape tools.

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