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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The only behavioral note is 'Key discarded,' which says the input is not retained, but it doesn't clarify that the operation is local, non-destructive, or what happens on invalid input. For a check tool, an agent would expect to know if there are side effects (e.g., network calls) or required permissions. This is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the purpose immediately and includes a useful behavioral note. It is appropriately concise for a simple validation tool, even though it lacks depth in other dimensions.

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?

Despite having 9 optional parameters and many sibling tools, the description is extremely sparse. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, when to prefer it over alternatives, or any constraints (e.g., local vs. remote). An agent cannot fully understand the tool's role without additional context. The lack of an output schema and annotations further raises the need for a richer description.

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 description coverage is 100% – all 9 parameters have clear descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already provides. Per the rubric, when schema coverage is high, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description doesn't compensate with additional semantics.

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 clearly states the action (check) and the resource (Jira issue key shape). It is specific enough to distinguish from sibling tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives. The phrase 'Key discarded' adds a behavioral hint but doesn't detract from purpose.

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?

The description implies the tool is for validating a Jira issue key, but it doesn't provide explicit when-to-use guidance or mention any alternatives. With many sibling shape-checking tools, an agent could benefit from a note like 'Use this when you need to verify a Jira key format.' The context is clear from the name, but not made explicit.

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