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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'Key discarded', which is ambiguous and refers to a nonexistent parameter. It does not mention return values, error behavior, side effects, or what constitutes a valid key shape, leaving the agent without any operational expectations.

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 single sentence with no fluff, so it is concise. However, conciseness here stems from under-specification rather than efficient communication. The sentence is not front-loaded with the most useful information (which parameter to use), and it omits critical details, so it earns a middle score.

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 optional parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the tool's purpose beyond the vague phrase, does not map parameters to the operation, and does not describe expected outputs or failure modes. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional guesswork.

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 has a description, but those descriptions are generic (e.g., 'Git ref name', 'HTTPS URL', 'City name') and unrelated to Jira keys. The tool description adds no clarity about which parameter is the key or how the parameters relate to the check. Baseline 3 is reduced because the descriptions are actively misleading, failing to compensate for the disconnect between the tool's purpose and its inputs.

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 the term 'shape' is undefined, and no parameter is identified as the key. With 9 unrelated string parameters, an agent cannot tell which input holds the Jira key or what a valid shape looks like. It also fails to differentiate from similar shape-check siblings like github-repo-shape or figma-url-shape.

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. The sibling list contains many shape-check tools, but the description offers no conditions, exclusions, or references to other tools. An agent has no way to decide whether this is the right tool for a given Jira key task.

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