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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Key discarded,' which is cryptic and does not reveal whether the tool performs network calls, returns a boolean, or has any side effects. The behavior is essentially undisclosed.

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 short sentences), which is concise, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently scoped. The phrase 'Key discarded' is ambiguous and does not earn its place as a meaningful disclosure. It is short, but not appropriately structured for the tool's complexity.

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 nine parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how to construct a valid call, what to pass, or what the tool returns. An agent has almost no information to use this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning. More importantly, the parameter descriptions (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') are generic and do not connect any parameter to a Jira key. The description fails to clarify which input is the Jira key, leaving the agent without a way to know how to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

States a specific action and resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), which is not a tautology. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like figma-url-shape or github-repo-shape, and it does not indicate how the Jira key is derived from any of the nine input parameters.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as domain-shape or wiki-title-ok. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or context that would select this tool over its siblings.

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