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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral details, but it only cryptically states 'Key discarded.' It does not explain what the tool returns, whether it is a boolean or a validation result, or any side effects. This is far below the burden required for a shape-checking tool.

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 extremely short, but conciseness is undermined by under-specification. It omits essential operational details (which parameter, what output) and would benefit from additional sentences to clarify usage. The 'Key discarded' note is cryptic and unhelpful.

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 tool has 9 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent cannot determine the input format, expected return value, or how to invoke it correctly. This is completely inadequate for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds no parameter semantics. It does not map any parameter to the Jira key being checked, and the schema descriptions are generic ('Git ref name; discarded after the shape check'). The tool description fails to connect the parameters to its core purpose, leaving the agent unable to determine which input is relevant.

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 operation ('Check a Jira issue key shape') but fails to identify which of the 9 parameters carries the key. The input schema lists generic fields like 'ref' and 'query' with no hint that any is a Jira key. This ambiguity makes it unclear how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 sibling shape-checkers like 'domain-shape' or 'github-repo-shape'. The description offers no context, exclusions, or alternatives, leaving the agent to guess based on name alone.

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