Token match (unranked keyword filter)

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description's job is lighter. It adds meaningful behavioral context beyond annotations: the operation is fast, unranked, matches indexed tokens and their stems, and returns a set of rows. This gives the agent a clear model of what the tool does without contradicting the annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the use case and core behavior, the second defines the return semantics, and the third routes to alternatives. The most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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 filtering tool with a fully documented schema and explicit sibling routing, the description is complete. It covers purpose, behavior, return semantics, and alternatives; the schema covers parameter details. No output schema exists, but the description's statement that it returns rows containing the tokens is sufficient for this tool's complexity.

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 input schema already documents all five parameters, including defaults, enums, and inference behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns rows whose text column contains the token(s), and explicitly frames it as an unranked keyword filter producing a set rather than a ranked order. It distinguishes itself from infino_keyword_search and infino_sql, so an agent can identify the correct tool without opening schemas.

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 a precise when-to-use condition: when you need the set of rows containing a keyword, not ranked results. It also names explicit alternatives and the conditions that select them: infino_keyword_search for ranked results and infino_sql for analytical filtering across columns.

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