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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses only that the key is 'discarded,' which is a useful privacy note, but it does not state the return value, validation criteria, error behavior, or whether the tool only reads 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 very short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. The second sentence, 'Key discarded,' adds only a vague behavioral note and does not replace the missing explanation of how to call the 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?

For a tool with nine parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is far too thin. It does not define what 'shape' means, which parameter to pass, what result to expect, or how this tool fits among the many sibling validators.

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 description coverage is 100%, which normally earns a baseline of 3, but the description introduces a 'key' concept that maps to no schema property. With nine optional parameters and no indication of which one is the Jira issue key, the description actively fails to add insight beyond the schema.

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 action and resource: 'Check a Jira issue key shape,' which distinguishes it from sibling shape-checking tools. However, it never ties that purpose to a parameter, since no schema property is named 'key'; the agent is left guessing which input carries the Jira issue key.

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 over siblings such as domain-shape, github-repo-shape, or wiki-title-ok. The description does not explain which input scenarios call for a Jira key shape check.

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