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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior but only states 'Key discarded.' It does not mention return values, side effects, or what happens for valid vs invalid keys. The mismatch between the Jira-focused description and the broad parameter set adds ambiguity rather than transparency.

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), which is concise, but it is under-specified. It does not earn conciseness because it omits essential information; it is more a stub than a concise summary.

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 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description provides almost no context: no return format, no side effects, no usage examples, and no explanation of how the parameters relate to the check. It is completely inadequate for an agent to call this tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100% so each parameter is documented in the schema, but the description adds no meaning beyond that. More importantly, the parameters (city, feed, json, path, zone, etc.) are not connected to the stated Jira-key purpose, so the description fails to clarify why these parameters exist or how they relate to the check.

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 verb and resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape') but leaves the meaning of 'shape' undefined and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. The parameter list includes unrelated fields (city, feed, json, path), so the purpose is not clearly scoped.

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 implies a Jira key context but does not state when not to use it or mention that other shape-checking tools exist for different key types.

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