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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does add some behavioral context: 'Key discarded' and schema notes like 'no disk access' and 'discarded after the check' suggest a read-only, non-retaining operation. But it does not disclose what the tool returns, how shape validation behaves, or what happens when the key is invalid.

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 short and the main purpose is front-loaded. However, the fragment 'Key discarded' is ambiguous because no key parameter exists, and the brevity creates more confusion than clarity for a tool with nine optional inputs.

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 nine parameters, no required fields, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain which parameter to use, what a valid Jira key shape is, how unrelated parameters are treated, or what the response looks like.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are individually documented and the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level meaning and, importantly, never says which of the nine parameters is the Jira issue key, leaving the core semantic connection missing.

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 operation ('Check a Jira issue key shape') and the resource is clear enough to distinguish this from sibling tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. However, the input schema contains no parameter named 'key' or 'issue', so the description does not connect the stated purpose to any concrete input.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-check tools, and it does not state which input should contain the Jira key. There are no exclusions, alternatives, or context hints beyond the tool name itself.

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