Exact match (unranked exact filter)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the filter is 'unranked' and operates on an 'indexed column', which is useful behavioral context beyond the schema. However, it does not mention side effects, permissions, or error behavior, but for a read-only filter this is acceptable. It adds meaningful transparency without 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?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core action and purpose, then distinguishing guidance. Every sentence earns its place with no filler. It is appropriately brief and well structured.

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 four parameters are fully described in the schema and the description names alternatives, the tool is well-covered. It does not mention the exact return format (e.g., the 'matched' field) but the schema's limit description hints at it. Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by suggesting typical value types (tag, status, or id string), but the schema already explains each parameter clearly. The limit parameter's behavior is fully described in the schema. No extra semantics are needed.

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 fetches rows where a column exactly equals a value, with concrete examples (tag, status, id). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming infino_keyword_search and infino_sql, making the purpose unambiguous and contextually differentiated.

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 direct guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives: 'For ranked text relevance use infino_keyword_search; for multi-column analytical filtering use infino_sql.' This is explicit and sufficient for an agent to select the correct tool among siblings.

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