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

The description says 'Key discarded', implying the input is not returned, but it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., boolean, error message) or any side effects. Since no annotations exist, the description carries full responsibility, and 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 very brief ('Check a Jira issue key shape. Key discarded.'), which is concise but lacks essential details. It does not structure information about input, output, or usage, so the brevity works against clarity rather than helping it.

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 9 optional parameters and no output schema, the description is grossly incomplete. An agent has no way to know what input to provide, what constitutes a valid request, or what response to expect. The description offers no context to resolve the mismatch between the tool name and the 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?

The schema descriptions for all 9 parameters are generic placeholders (e.g., 'Git ref name; discarded after the shape check', 'HTTPS URL to normalize or cite') and none are specifically identified as a Jira issue key. The descriptions read like a copy-paste from a generic shape checker, providing no meaningful guidance on which parameter to use or how they relate to the tool's purpose.

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 the verb 'Check' and resource 'Jira issue key shape', but it fails to specify which input parameter holds the key, making the purpose ambiguous. The tool's name suggests a specific input, but the parameter list includes unrelated fields like url, city, and host, so an agent cannot determine what to pass.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus sibling shape-checking tools (e.g., domain-shape, github-repo-shape). It does not mention expected key format, edge cases, or alternatives. The description is a single sentence with no usage context.

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