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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It states 'Key discarded,' which is a transparency note about side effects, but it doesn't explain what happens on success/failure, whether the tool makes network calls, or what output the caller receives. The tool's behavior beyond the discard note is opaque.

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 very short, two sentences, with no fluff. It front-loads the core purpose and includes a side-effect note. However, the brevity comes at the cost of essential information, so while it is concise, it is under-specified.

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?

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, yet the description provides almost no context. It doesn't specify which parameter holds the Jira key, what 'shape' means (regex, format), or what the return value indicates. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the given information, making it critically incomplete.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3, but the description fails to connect any parameter to the Jira key. The schema descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check') and none explicitly refers to a Jira issue key. The description adds no meaning to help an agent select the correct parameter, making the tool essentially unusable without prior knowledge.

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 a Jira issue key shape.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'Key discarded' indicates the tool does nothing else. It is distinguishable from siblings like domain-shape or github-repo-shape by the Jira focus, though it doesn't explicitly name them.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention conditions like 'for Jira issue keys, use this' or exclude cases like non-Jira keys. An agent has to infer usage from the name alone, which is insufficient given the generic parameter list.

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