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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'Key discarded' but does not explain the broader behavior of the tool, such as whether it performs network access, whether it validates only the format or also existence, or what happens to the other eight parameters. More critically, the description says 'Check a Jira issue key shape' while the schema parameters (ref, url, city, etc.) do not include an obvious Jira key field, creating an internal inconsistency that obscures the tool's actual behavior.

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 ('Check a Jira issue key shape. Key discarded.'), but this is under-specification rather than concise completeness. It omits essential information about the input parameter for the key and the exact validation behavior. The schema includes many unrelated parameters that the description does not address, so the brevity is not a virtue.

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's complexity (nine parameters, all optional, no output schema, no annotations) and the existence of many sibling shape-check tools, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain how to pass the Jira key, what constitutes a valid shape, whether the check is purely syntactic, or how the result is returned. An agent would have to guess the correct usage, which is unacceptable for a tool with this many parameters and no other documentation.

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 descriptions for all nine parameters are minimal, mostly stating that the value is 'discarded after the check' or similar. The tool description adds no meaning beyond this. It does not clarify which parameter receives the Jira issue key, nor does it provide examples or format expectations. Although schema coverage is 100%, the descriptions are so generic that they do not help an agent map inputs to the intended 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 verb and resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), but the input schema includes nine parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) none of which is clearly a Jira issue key. The description does not specify which parameter holds the key, so an agent cannot confidently map the purpose to the schema. This ambiguity distinguishes it poorly from sibling shape-check tools like domain-shape or github-repo-shape.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. Siblings like domain-shape, github-repo-shape, and figma-url-shape exist, but the description does not mention any of them or state the condition that would select jira-key-shape. The intended use case (checking a Jira issue key) is implied only by the name and one-line description.

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