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

The phrase 'Key discarded' is the only behavioral hint, suggesting no persistence, but the description does not disclose whether it returns a boolean, a normalized key, an error, or anything else. With no annotations, the behavioral contract is largely unspecified.

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 terse and free of fluff: two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded. It could use more substance, but as far as conciseness and structure, it is appropriately sized.

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 is incomplete in context: no output schema is provided, no return behavior is described, and the input parameters do not align with the stated purpose. An agent cannot reliably call this tool based solely on the description and schema.

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 nine generic string parameters—ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query—but none is identified as the Jira issue key. Their descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name for a public weather hint') are irrelevant to checking a Jira key shape, so a caller cannot determine which parameter 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 essentially restates the tool name: 'Check a Jira issue key shape' adds little beyond 'jira-key-shape'. It does not explain what a valid shape is or what the tool returns, and the parameter list contains no obvious 'key' field, making the purpose ambiguous in practice.

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-checking tools like domain-shape, figma-url-shape, or github-repo-shape. No prerequisites, expected inputs, or conditions for selection are mentioned.

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