Search BJJGraph

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral color beyond them: matching is fuzzy, aliases are searchable, partial English names resolve, and Korean terms are auto-translated. It does not describe result ordering or pagination behavior, but the schema already documents limit/offset.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler; the resource coverage is front-loaded and the fuzzy-matching caveat follows immediately. Every clause carries information an agent can act on.

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?

For a read-only search over a fully documented schema, the description covers what can be matched and the fuzziness caveat. With no output schema, it could have said what a result looks like (name + type + id), but that gap is small for a search tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including the type enum are fully documented in structured fields, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only marginal semantics for 'query' (aliases, partial names, Korean translation) beyond the schema's own 'name or part of a name' wording.

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 ('Fuzzy search') and enumerates the resource types it covers (positions, transitions, submissions, systems, principles, learning notes), which distinguishes it from the get_* and list siblings by its search-oriented nature. It does not explicitly name the sibling it replaces, so differentiation is implied rather than stated.

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 description implies lookup usage and notes that partial English names work and Korean terms are translated, which is useful query guidance. It never says when to use this instead of bjj_list or bjj_get_technique/bjj_get_position, leaving the search-vs-retrieve choice to inference.

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