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

The description does disclose one useful behavioral trait: the key is discarded after the check, implying no persistent storage. However, it does not disclose what the tool returns, what valid or invalid shapes look like, whether any call could fail, or whether other values are also discarded. Without annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral transparency, and it does not.

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 sentences are technically concise, but the brevity is the result of under-specification. The critical information about parameter mapping, the key format, and the return value is omitted. This is not efficient conciseness; it is underspecification dressed as minimalism.

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 nine optional parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is dramatically incomplete. An agent cannot determine which parameter to provide, what the output will be, or what constitutes a successful check. The description 'Jira issue key shape' does not provide enough context to safely select and invoke this tool.

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 covers all nine parameters with per-field descriptions, so the baseline is 3, but the tool-level description does not map the Jira key concept to any specific parameter. The schema's 'Git ref name', 'JSON text', and 'City name' fields are unrelated to a Jira key name, leaving the agent unable to construct a valid call. The description adds no clarifying parameter meaning and actually introduces confusion.

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 names a concrete resource ('Jira issue key') and a concrete action ('Check ... shape'), so an agent can infer the tool is a validator. However, the nine parameters in the schema are unrelated to a Jira key (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query), and the description gives no hint which parameter holds the key or what shape criteria apply. It therefore reads as vaguely purposeful but not actionable.

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 description provides no guidance about when to use this tool over sibling shape-checkers like github-repo-shape, domain-shape, or validate-json. Nothing explains what kind of value should be passed or what qualifies as a Jira issue key. The only real signal is the tool name, which the agent must rely on entirely.

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