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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. The phrase 'Key discarded' adds a useful data-retention note, but it does not state side effects, return behavior, or validation characteristics. For a no-annotation tool this is too thin.

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 short sentences with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded. Each sentence serves a function—purpose and a data-retention note—even though the extreme brevity edges toward under-specification.

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 seven heterogenus parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too short to orient an agent. It fails to say which parameter holds the key, what the check result looks like, or what 'discarded' means operationally; the schema field descriptions do not integrate with the tool's purpose.

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?

All seven parameters have individual schema descriptions, so schema description coverage is 100%, and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no mapping of the Jira key to any field and does not clarify which parameters are actually shape-checked, so its value beyond the schema is minimal.

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 verb 'Check' and resource 'Jira issue key shape' clearly state the tool's validation purpose and distinguish it from sibling shape tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, no parameter is named 'key', so an agent cannot tell from the description which input holds the key.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives; there are no prerequisites, exclusions, or context such as 'use before calling a Jira API'. The only implied context is the tool name, which is insufficient for an agent deciding among shape-checking siblings.

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