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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Key discarded', implying no persistence, but does not clarify whether the operation is read-only, what happens on invalid input, or if any side effects occur. The multiple 'discarded' notes in schema descriptions hint at safety, but the tool-level description is silent on these aspects.

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 brief (two short sentences), but this brevity is under-specification rather than effective conciseness. It does not front-load critical information like the expected input format or output, and it wastes no words but also provides no value.

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 9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations, and a complex domain (Jira key shape validation), the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine what constitutes a valid Jira key, how the check is performed, what the return value is, or which parameter to supply. The schema's additionalProperties:false and varied fields further confuse rather than clarify.

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%, so each parameter has a description. However, the tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema; it does not identify which parameter represents the Jira key or explain how parameters like 'city' or 'feed' relate to the stated purpose. The schema descriptions themselves are generic and fail to clarify usage.

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 specific verb+resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), but the input schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) with no indication which one is the Jira key. This mismatch makes the actual purpose ambiguous and fails to differentiate from sibling shape-check tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not state prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions. The agent is left to infer usage from the name and schema, which is insufficient given the schema's breadth.

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