Token match (unranked keyword filter)

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and covers important behavioral aspects: returns a set (unranked), matches on indexed tokens and their stems, and notes that matches beyond limit are counted but not returned. It lacks info on ordering and whether partial column matches are included, but those are partly implied.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and concise. Every sentence adds value, with no excessive detail. It references sibling names for alternatives without over-explaining.

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 no annotations or output schema, and standard parameter schema, the description is complete for a straightforward keyword filter. It explains return behavior, alternatives, and key matching semantics. More detail could be given on ordering or exact column inference but not essential.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no new info about parameters beyond confirming the tool's operation, but it does confirm inferred column behavior. Per rubric, baseline 3 given high 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's purpose: returning the SET of rows containing a keyword as an unranked filterable operation rich in semantics (stems). It distinguishes it from siblings key_word_search and exact_match by noting absence of ranking or exact matching.

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?

Explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool (unranked keyword filter) and when to use alternatives: ranked results to infino_keyword_search, analytical filtering across columns to infino_sql. It also mentions it returns rows whose column contains the token.

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