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

The description discloses one behavioral trait — 'Key discarded' — which helps set privacy and side-effect expectations. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it fails to disclose the return format, behavior on invalid keys, or any error conditions.

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 two short sentences with the core purpose front-loaded and no filler. The second sentence adds a behavioral note, though its reference to 'key' is ambiguous without a matching schema parameter.

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 annotations, and no output schema, the description needs to explain which parameter to use and what the tool returns. It does neither, and the unrelated schema parameters make the tool effectively uncallable by an agent.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions describe unrelated fields such as url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, and query — none of which is a Jira issue key. The description's mention of a 'key' does not map to any schema property, making parameter selection actively misleading.

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 clear action ('check') and a specific resource ('Jira issue key shape'), and the name distinguishes it from sibling shape-checkers like github-repo-shape and domain-shape. However, it never identifies which input parameter carries the Jira key, and the schema contains no 'key' property, leaving ambiguity about what to pass.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus sibling shape-checking tools, nor any mention of prerequisites or exclusions. The name implies it is specifically for Jira issue keys, but the description does not explicitly state this or mention alternatives.

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