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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Key discarded,' which hints that the input is not retained, but does not explain return values, side effects, or what happens to the other schema properties. The relationship between the stated 'key' and the seven unrelated parameters is unexplained.

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 short and front-loaded, with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a tool with seven parameters and no additional context, so the brevity crosses from concise into incomplete.

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 the complex schema with seven heterogeneous properties, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It omits which parameter is the key, what the tool returns, and when it should be used. An agent would struggle to invoke this tool correctly based on the description and schema alone.

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 the schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, the descriptions are generic and unrelated to Jira key shape (e.g., 'city', 'json', 'feed'), and the tool description introduces a 'key' parameter that does not exist in the schema. This creates confusion rather than clarity, so the baseline of 3 is not met.

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 explicitly states the action ('Check') and the resource ('Jira issue key shape'), which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling shape-checkers like domain-shape or figma-url-shape. However, it does not clarify which of the seven input parameters represents the key, leaving a small but meaningful ambiguity.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, so an agent cannot determine if this is the right checker for a given input.

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