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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It only states 'Key discarded,' implying the input is not persisted, but it does not disclose side effects, permission requirements, or the fate of the other eight parameters. The schema descriptions already mention 'discarded' for many params, so the description adds nothing beyond the schema.

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 brief (two sentences) with no wasted words, but it is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters and no output schema. The structure lacks any breakdown of what the tool does with the parameters, making it too sparse to be effective. It is concise in length but not appropriately structured for the tool's complexity.

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 the high parameter count (9), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain the return value, which parameter is the Jira key, how the other parameters are used, or any edge cases. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the description alone.

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%, so each parameter already has a description. The tool description adds no extra meaning about how parameters relate to the Jira key shape check; it is unclear which parameter is the actual key. Per the baseline rule, since the schema covers all parameters, a score of 3 is appropriate, but the description fails to clarify the critical mapping.

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') and resource ('Jira issue key shape'), but it does not explain which of the nine schema parameters represents the key, nor does it distinguish this from sibling shape-checking tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape. The purpose is understandable but ambiguous in the context of the provided 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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling shape-checking tools (e.g., domain-shape, figma-url-shape, wiki-title-ok). The description gives no context for selection, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria, leaving the agent to guess based on the name alone.

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