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

There are no annotations, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the key is discarded, which is useful, but it omits what happens on valid versus invalid keys, what the return value is, and whether any other side effects occur.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, the extreme brevity sacrifices essential details about how to invoke the tool.

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 tool has 7 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description fails to identify which parameter is the Jira key. This is a critical gap: an agent cannot correctly select and invoke the tool based on the provided 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?

Schema descriptions cover all 7 properties, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds no mapping between 'Jira issue key' and any parameter. Moreover, the schema contains no obvious Jira-key parameter: 'ref' is labeled as a Git ref, and other fields cover weather, RSS, JSON, and URLs, leaving an agent unable to determine which parameter to supply.

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 names a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('Jira issue key shape'), so the core purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape, but the tool name and description together are sufficiently specific.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no input prerequisites, and no exclusions. 'Check a Jira issue key shape' is a statement of purpose rather than usage direction.

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