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

The tool mentions 'Key discarded,' indicating that the key is not retained after the call, which adds a small behavioral note. However, it does not disclose what happens on valid or invalid keys, return format, or side effects. Moreover, the parameter names in the schema (e.g., 'url', 'city', 'query') are unrelated to a Jira key, creating a confusing mismatch that reduces transparency.

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 very concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and is well-structured. However, the brevity combined with the parameter mismatch slightly reduces clarity, so it is not a perfect score.

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?

The description is severely inadequate for an agent to use correctly. With 9 parameters, all optional, and no output schema, the description provides no information on what constitutes a valid Jira key shape, how the parameters are used, or what the expected output is. The unrelated parameters further compound the confusion, making this tool nearly unusable without additional context.

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?

While the schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters, the tool description adds no meaning to them; it actually contradicts the parameter set because none of the parameters relate to a Jira key. The description fails to bridge the gap between the tool's purpose and the generic parameters, making the schema less useful.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Check a Jira issue key shape.' This is a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like domain-shape or figma-url-shape, which check other types of formats.

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. The description lacks any mention of context, conditions, or alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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