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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, return values, errors, or permissions. It only mentions that the key is discarded, but says nothing about what the tool returns, whether it mutates anything, or what happens on invalid input.

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 and front-loaded, with no filler words. However, it is overly terse and omits essential information about how the input relates to the tool's purpose, so the brevity comes at the expense of usefulness.

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, no required fields, no output schema), the description is far from complete. It does not explain how the Jira key is provided, what shape is expected, what the output looks like, or how errors are reported.

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 every schema parameter has a description, those descriptions are unrelated to the stated purpose of checking a Jira issue key shape. The parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) appear to be generic placeholders, and none of them maps clearly to a Jira issue key. The descriptions add confusion rather than clarity.

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 ('Check a Jira issue key shape') and identifies the domain (Jira), but it fails to indicate which input parameter carries the key. The input schema contains nine unrelated optional parameters (e.g., ref, url, city, feed) and no field named 'key', making the actual purpose confusing and hard to act on.

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 its siblings such as normalize-url, domain-shape, or github-repo-shape. No conditions, alternatives, or context are provided, so an agent cannot determine when this tool is the appropriate choice.

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