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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It only notes 'Key discarded,' implying no persistence, but does not state whether it is read-only, makes network calls, or what the return format is. The schema descriptions of some parameters also mention 'discarded,' but the tool description itself is minimal.

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 concise, with two short sentences that state the purpose and a disposal note. It is front-loaded and has no wasted words. However, the brevity borders on under-specification, though it still earns a high score for conciseness.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is woefully incomplete. It does not explain what 'shape' means, which parameter is the key, what the result indicates, or any operational details. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on this description alone.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema documents each parameter individually. However, the tool description does not map any parameter to the 'key' it checks, and the schema contains many unrelated parameters (city, feed, json, etc.) that have no clear connection to Jira keys. This creates confusion about which parameter to pass, and the description adds no semantic value 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 action ('Check a Jira issue key shape') with a clear verb and resource. It is not a tautology and implies a format validation. However, it does not differentiate from sibling shape-checking tools like 'github-repo-shape' or 'domain-shape', and the term 'shape' is ambiguous. Still, the core purpose is identifiable.

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. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or reference any sibling tools. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and purpose.

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