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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The description only says 'Key discarded,' which hints at non-retention but does not explain what the tool does with the input, what it returns, whether it makes external calls, or what 'shape check' entails. This is almost no behavioral information for a tool with 9 optional parameters.

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 (two sentences), which is concise, but it is under-specified. It front-loads the purpose but omits essential detail. This is more under-specification than effective conciseness, as a single purpose statement is not enough for a tool with this many parameters.

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?

With 9 parameters, no required fields, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It does not state which parameter is the key, what constitutes a valid shape, what the tool returns, or any side effects. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds no value beyond the schema and actively confuses: it says 'Jira issue key' yet none of the parameters (ref, url, city, feed, host, json, path, zone, query) resemble a Jira key. The schema descriptions themselves are generic and do not connect to Jira, so the parameter semantics are not clarified.

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 verb and resource ('Check a Jira issue key shape'), which gives a clear purpose in isolation. However, the input schema contains nine parameters, none of which is a Jira issue key, so the mapping between the stated purpose and the actual inputs is ambiguous. It also does not differentiate from sibling shape-checking tools like 'domain-shape' or 'github-repo-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 the many sibling shape-checking tools. No conditions, alternatives, or exclusions are mentioned. An agent would have to infer usage entirely from the name, which is insufficient.

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