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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Key discarded', which hints at non-persistence but omits what constitutes a valid Jira key shape, whether it makes external calls, or what happens on invalid input. The phrase also references a 'key' that doesn't map to any schema parameter, adding confusion rather than transparency.

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 concise sentence with no filler. It is front-loaded with the purpose. However, it is so brief that it omits essential information about parameter selection and expected behavior, so while concise, it is not efficiently informative.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain which parameter to use, what shape is considered valid, or what the tool returns. The agent cannot correctly invoke this tool without guessing, making it essentially unusable as specified.

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 tool description adds no meaning to the parameters. It never indicates which parameter is the Jira key, so the agent cannot infer how to use ref, url, or any other field for the key check. The parameter descriptions themselves are generic and unrelated to Jira, so the description fails to compensate for the mismatch.

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 action ('Check a Jira issue key shape') and a verb, so it's not a tautology. However, it fails to connect this purpose to any of the 9 input parameters—none of which is explicitly a Jira key—leaving the agent unable to determine which parameter to populate. It also doesn't distinguish itself from sibling shape-checkers like github-repo-shape or domain-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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions. The only behavioral note, 'Key discarded', is a one-off side effect, not a usage guideline. An agent has no idea when to select this over other shape-check tools.

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