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

Annotations are absent, so the description must carry the behavioral burden. It only states 'Key discarded' but there is no key parameter, and it does not clarify what happens to the other inputs (e.g., url, city, feed). Parameter descriptions hint at discarding for some (ref, json, query) but not for others (url, host, zone). The description fails to disclose the tool's actual behavior, such as whether it validates all inputs, returns a boolean, or has side effects.

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 sentence, which is superficially concise. However, it is under-specified rather than efficiently structured; it omits critical information and fails to front-load the most relevant details about the Jira key shape check. The one sentence does not earn its place because it creates more ambiguity than clarity.

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 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not specify what the tool returns, whether it validates all parameters or only a specific one, what constitutes a valid Jira key shape, or how the diverse parameters (city, zone, json) relate to the core function. An agent cannot reliably use this tool without further information.

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% with each parameter described, so the baseline is 3. However, the tool description adds no value beyond the schema; it does not explain the relationship between the Jira key check and the diverse parameters. The schema descriptions themselves are inconsistent (some say 'discarded', others don't), and the tool description does not clarify this. The description's mention of 'Key discarded' is misleading since no key parameter exists, failing to enhance parameter understanding.

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 a Jira issue key shape.' This is a specific verb and resource, and it distinguishes from siblings like domain-shape and github-repo-shape. However, the input schema includes 9 unrelated parameters (city, feed, host, json, etc.) and no 'key' parameter, creating confusion about how the tool actually operates. The purpose is stated but not consistently supported by the schema.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are many sibling tools for shape checks (domain-shape, github-repo-shape, figma-url-shape), but the description does not mention any of them or specify conditions for selection. The agent is left to infer usage context, which is insufficient given the ambiguous schema.

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