Exact match (unranked exact filter)

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral context beyond that: the operation is 'unranked' and relies on an 'indexed column,' which sets expectations about ordering and prerequisites. It also clarifies that this is exact equality, not fuzzy or ranked matching.

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 tight sentences with no filler. It front-loads the operation, adds a key behavioral qualifier, and then names alternatives in a compact final sentence. Every sentence earns its place.

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 exact-filter tool, the description covers operation, value semantics, indexing expectations, and sibling differentiation. The schema fills in parameter details, including limit behavior and column inference, so nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and use this tool 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 extra meaning by giving expected value examples ('tag, status, or id string') and by framing column as an indexed column, which supplements the schema's generic definitions. Limit and table parameters are already well documented in the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'fetch rows whose column exactly equals a value' and gives concrete value examples like tag, status, or id. It clearly distinguishes this tool from infino_keyword_search and infino_sql by calling it an 'unranked exact-equality filter.'

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 states the primary use case up front and explicitly routes the agent to infino_keyword_search for ranked text relevance and infino_sql for multi-column analytical filtering. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to the most relevant sibling tools.

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