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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It says 'Key discarded' but does not explain what is returned, whether the operation is read-only, or any side effects. The parameter descriptions mention 'discarded' inconsistently (e.g., ref, city, json) but not for all, and this does not clarify the tool's overall behavior.

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 brief (two sentences), but it omits essential details and is not front-loaded with important information. The brevity is a liability, not a strength, because it leaves the agent without the necessary context to call the tool correctly.

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?

With 9 parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description fails to clarify the intended use, input format, output, or constraints. This is a substantial gap for a tool with this complexity, making it impossible for an agent to use effectively.

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 coverage is 100%, so each parameter has a description. However, these descriptions are generic and unrelated to the purported Jira key focus. They do not explain how to form a Jira key or what shape is being validated, so they add little meaning beyond the parameter names.

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.' However, the input schema contains parameters like city, feed, host, zone, and query that have no obvious connection to Jira keys, making the actual purpose ambiguous. An agent cannot determine what input to supply or what the tool does with these unrelated fields.

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 on when to use this tool versus its siblings (e.g., domain-shape, figma-url-shape). There is no mention of prerequisites, conditions, or alternatives, leaving the agent without a basis to select this tool.

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