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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. 'Key discarded' suggests a side effect, but it's unclear whether that means the key is not returned, ignored, or something else. The schema descriptions repeat 'discarded' but do not clarify the tool's actual behavior or failure modes.

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 short (one sentence), but this is under-specification, not conciseness. It lacks essential information and front-loads nothing useful. The sentence is not self-contained and leaves the agent without actionable guidance.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what shape is validated, which parameter is the key, what happens on success/failure, or how to interpret the 'discarded' behavior. The agent cannot reliably call this tool based on the given information.

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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the description does not map any parameter to the Jira key concept. The schema itself is confusing: it lists 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, json, etc.) with descriptions like 'discarded after the shape check', which does not indicate which one is the key. The description adds no value beyond the schema and fails to connect the parameters to the stated purpose.

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 verb+resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape') but is vague: it doesn't specify what 'shape' means, which input parameter carries the key, or how it differs from sibling tools like 'github-repo-shape' or 'domain-shape'. The phrase 'Key discarded' adds ambiguity rather than clarity.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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