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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only says the key is discarded, which hints at non-retention, but it does not describe return values, error behavior, whether the check is a simple regex, or whether any external access occurs. The schema's per-parameter 'discarded' notes already convey much of the same information.

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?

Two short, front-loaded sentences contain no filler. The second sentence adds a useful privacy note, though the description could have used the space more effectively to clarify the input mapping and expected output.

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 validator with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits critical operational details: what a valid Jira issue key looks like, which parameter to populate, and what the tool returns. This incompleteness is especially costly given the many sibling shape and validation tools.

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?

The schema has nine optional parameters, but none is named 'key' or described as a Jira issue key. The parameters are generic (Git ref, URL, city, JSON, path, zone, query), so the description's 'Jira issue key' cannot be mapped to any parameter with confidence. The high schema-description coverage does not help because the descriptions are unrelated to the tool's stated purpose.

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 and resource: checking the shape of a Jira issue key. This distinguishes it from sibling shape tools like github-repo-shape and figma-url-shape. However, it does not define what a valid Jira key shape is or how the key is supplied, so it is not fully self-contained.

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 for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as github-repo-shape, domain-shape, or figma-url-shape. The tool name implies the domain, but the description offers no explicit selection criteria, exclusions, or context about when the check is appropriate.

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