Get technique detail

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds what categories of content exist (outcomes, probabilities, counters, safety, clips), but says nothing about pagination behavior, defaults, or output size limits beyond the schema's page/max_chars fields. No annotation contradiction.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose ('Full detail for one transition or submission'), followed by a compact enumeration of what is included and one practical tip. No wasted framing, though the long section list is slightly dense.

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?

All five parameters are documented, annotations cover safety, and there is no output schema to explain. The description tells the agent what content areas exist and how to narrow retrieval via `sections`, which is enough to call it correctly. Minor gap: no explicit mention of how page and max_chars interact for long results, though the schema covers the basics.

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 name, page, sections enum, max_chars, and perspective. The description reinforces the meaning of `sections` ('fetch only what you need') and lists returned content categories, but adds no format, ordering, or interaction details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb and resource: 'Full detail for one transition or submission', and enumerates the content categories returned. It is clearly distinguishable from list/search siblings by implication, but never names a sibling or explicitly contrasts scope.

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?

The only usage guidance is 'Use `sections` to fetch only what you need', which is a tuning tip rather than when-to-use-this-vs-alternatives guidance. There is no explicit exclusion or routing cue relative to bjj_search, bjj_get_position, or bjj_find_paths.

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