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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only says 'Key discarded', which vaguely implies the input is not retained, but does not disclose output format, error behavior, or side effects. For a validation tool, this is insufficient.

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, which is concise but not front-loaded with useful information. It is under-specified for a tool with nine parameters, so the brevity does not earn its place; it omits critical details.

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 complexity of nine parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, error conditions, or how to use any of the parameters. An agent cannot correctly invoke this tool based on the provided information.

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%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The tool description adds no extra meaning about parameters; it does not clarify which parameter is the Jira key or how parameters relate. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific action ('Check a Jira issue key shape') but the input schema has nine unrelated parameters with no explicit Jira key field. The 'Key discarded' phrase adds confusion rather than clarity about which parameter holds the key. It is not a tautology but is ambiguous about how to invoke.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. Does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or why one would choose this over sibling shape-checking tools like github-repo-shape or domain-shape. Entirely absent.

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