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

With no annotations provided, the phrase 'Key discarded' is a useful disclosure that the key/input is not retained, which adds some behavioral context. However, it does not cover output behavior, failure cases, or whether any external resources are contacted, so transparency is only partial.

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 only two sentences, with the purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence contributes a distinct meaningful detail about discarding the key, so there is no wasted content.

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?

This tool has 9 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description needs to explain which parameter should be used as the Jira key and what the check returns. It does neither, leaving an unresolved gap between the described Jira-key purpose and the unrelated parameter list.

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% because every property has its own description, so the baseline is 3 even though the prose adds little parameter-level detail. The description's 'key' is not explicitly mapped to any of the schema's nine properties, so it does not add beyond what the schema already provides.

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', and the 'Jira' scoping separates it from sibling shape tools such as domain-shape or github-repo-shape. It is not a tautology, but it leaves the exact meaning of 'shape' and the expected result unstated.

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, no prerequisite information, and no explicit when-not or exclusion criteria. The description implies a use case only through the tool name and the word 'Jira'.

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