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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden for behavior. It adds the sole detail that the key is discarded, which is a useful privacy cue, but it does not disclose whether the check is local-only, whether it makes network calls, or what output format is produced. The behavioral picture is mostly empty.

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 two terse sentences with no filler; the primary action is stated first and the discard behavior follows. It is concise without being verbose, though it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

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?

Given a broad 9-parameter schema, no annotations, no output schema, and 27 sibling tools, this description is far too thin. It fails to tell the agent which argument contains the key, what shape means, what result to expect, or whether any side effects occur, leaving the agent unable to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so each parameter is individually documented and the baseline is set to 3. The description does not clarify that any of the nine generic parameters is the 'Jira issue key', leaving some mapping ambiguity, but the schema itself is self-documenting for each parameter's own role.

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 specific verb and resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape') and clearly differentiates from sibling shape-checking tools like github-repo-shape and figma-url-shape. It does not describe the accepted format or return value, so it is not fully self-contained, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus related alternatives such as domain-shape, figma-url-shape, or normalize-url. There are no conditions, exclusions, or recommended triggers, so an agent has to infer usage solely from the tool's name.

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