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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states that the key is discarded. It does not clarify whether the check is local, whether it contacts Jira, or what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error message). This is a significant gap for a validation 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 a two-sentence, front-loaded statement with no waste. It states the action and the disposal behavior without any filler, which is ideal for a simple tool.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and a seemingly mismatched multi-parameter schema, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain what the tool accepts, what it returns, or why parameters like 'city' or 'json' are present. An agent would be unable to reliably invoke this tool correctly 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?

The description mentions a 'key', but none of the seven schema properties (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path) is explicitly a Jira key. The schema descriptions themselves are unrelated to Jira (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'City name'), and the description does not map its 'key' to any parameter. An agent cannot determine which argument to supply, making this a critical semantic gap.

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 identifies a specific verb ('Check') and a clear resource ('Jira issue key shape'), which distinguishes it from sibling shape-checker tools like 'domain-shape' and 'github-repo-shape'. The name and description reinforce each other, making the tool's core function unmistakable.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose: an agent would use this when it needs to validate the format of a Jira key. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to choose this over alternatives, nor any mention of prerequisites or fallback options.

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