Count keyword matches

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden and does disclose key behavior: it is a fast tally, performs no row fetching, and does no ranking. It does not mention edge cases like zero matches or exact count guarantees, but the stated behavior is clear and non-contradictory.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the key purpose, and contains no redundant or filler language. Every sentence adds value: what it does, when it is cheaper, and which sibling to use instead.

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 simple count tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is largely complete: it explains the count-only behavior, the use case, the cost advantage, and the alternatives. It does not explicitly state the return type, but 'HOW MANY rows' and 'fast tally' make the integer count outcome clear enough.

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 all four parameters (table, query, mode, column) are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal parameter-level context beyond clarifying the count-only purpose, which matches the baseline for full schema coverage.

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 clearly states the tool counts keyword matches rather than returning rows, with a specific verb ('count') and resource ('rows matching a keyword query'). It explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling search tools by emphasizing the count-only result and naming alternatives.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when you only need HOW MANY rows match'), cost guidance ('Cheaper than infino_keyword_search'), and direct alternatives ('For the matching rows use infino_keyword_search or infino_token_match'). This fully covers selection between the tool and its siblings.

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