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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Key discarded,' which is vague and does not clarify what inputs are read, whether the operation is side-effect-free, or what happens with the supplied parameters. The statement 'Key discarded' is not meaningful without a defined 'key' parameter.

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 (two sentences), but under-specification is not conciseness. It omits critical information and the structure does not front-load the most important details about what the key parameter is or how the check behaves.

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, this description is completely inadequate. The agent cannot infer which input to provide, what the output format is, or what 'shape' validation entails. The mismatch between the description and the schema further degrades completeness.

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%, but the parameter descriptions are generic and disconnected from the stated purpose. For example, 'ref' is described as a Git ref name, not a Jira key, and there is no parameter that obviously corresponds to a Jira issue key. The description adds no clarification on which parameter to use or how the shape check is applied.

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 ('Check') and a resource ('Jira issue key shape'), but it never identifies which parameter holds the key. The schema lists 9 unrelated fields (city, feed, host, json, etc.) with no 'key' parameter, so the purpose is ambiguous. It does not distinguish from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape or github-repo-shape beyond the name.

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 siblings such as domain-shape or figma-url-shape. The description does not mention any context, prerequisites, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess applicability.

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