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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It only notes 'Key discarded' but does not clarify side effects, permissions, or whether the operation is read-only. The lack of any behavioral detail beyond discarding input is a significant gap for a tool that likely validates input without side effects.

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 (two sentences) and front-loads the purpose, but it is under-specified. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it inadequate for an agent to act on.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain how parameters map to the tool's function, what 'shape' means, expected input format, or any output behavior. An agent cannot reliably 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?

Although schema description coverage is 100%, the parameter descriptions are generic and unrelated to Jira key shape (e.g., 'City name', 'Public RSS or Atom URL'). The tool description does not identify which parameter is the Jira key or how the other parameters fit. This creates confusion rather than clarifying usage.

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 ('Check') and resource ('Jira issue key shape'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like domain-shape or figma-url-shape. However, it lacks any detail on what constitutes a valid shape, so an agent knows what it checks but not what is being validated.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention conditions, exclusions, or why one would pick this over other shape-checkers. The intended context is only implied by the name.

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