Hybrid (keyword + semantic) search

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the query is embedded with a local model, requires no API key, and that ranking prioritizes rows matching both literal terms and meaning. It does not mention output structure or edge cases, but it gives substantial transparency for a search tool.

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 four sentences with no filler. Every sentence contributes unique value: usage context, mechanism, operational detail (local embedding), and tool positioning among siblings.

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 tool's complexity (6 params, no output schema), the description covers the use case, ranking behavior, and relationship to sibling tools. The output format is partly inferable from the schema's `columns` parameter, but the description itself does not explicitly state what a result contains beyond ranking logic, leaving a small gap.

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?

The input schema already describes all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds conceptual context by explaining that BM25 operates over a text column and vector similarity over an embedding column, which helps map to `column` and `vectorColumn`, but it does not add per-parameter syntax or constraints beyond 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 clearly states the tool's function: it fuses BM25 keyword matching with vector similarity in a single ranking pass. It also explicitly contrasts it with infino_keyword_search and infino_semantic_search, making its unique scope immediately obvious.

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 opens with an explicit usage condition: 'Use when a query carries both specific terms and an intent.' It further positions the tool between keyword-only and semantic-only siblings, giving clear guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives.

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