Why can't this generic function resolve a type from a default type parameter?

I have the following situation:

pub enum FilterOp<T: Into<FieldValue> = ()> {
    // binary operators 
    EQUAL(T),
    LESS_THAN(T),
    ...
    // unary operators 
    IS_NULL,
    ...
}

My goal is to use the same enum for both binary operators, which carry an additional value of T, and unary operators, which don't. When I use a "unary operator" variant (eg FilterOp::IS_NULL), I want T to be ().

However, I want to use this enum with this trait:

pub trait Filter<T: Into<FieldValue> = ()> {
    fn filter(self, field: &str, op: FilterOp<T>) -> Self;
    ...
}

Which means, when I implement Filter like this:

impl<T: Into<FieldValue>> Filter<T> for Query {
    fn filter(self, field: &str, op: FilterOp<T>) -> Self {
        ...
    }
    ...
}

And use Query::filter with FilterOp::IS_NULL:

database().query().filter("test_null", FilterOp::IS_NULL)

The type for T in impl<T: Into<FieldValue>> Filter<T> for Query which implements filter cannot be determined:

error[E0283]: type annotations required: cannot resolve `_: std::convert::Into<document::fields::FieldValue>`
   --> database/src/firestore/query.rs:180:32
    |
180 | ...                   .filter("test_null", FilterOp::IS_NULL);
    |                        ^^^^^^

Which is why I have to use this syntax:

database().query().filter("test_null", FilterOp::<()>::IS_NULL)

Why doesn't filter use the default for T in the declaration of FilterOp here? Shouldn't FilterOp::IS_NULL be of type FilterOp::<()> when T is not specified? What could I do to be able to omit the type annotation?

Thanks for your help

almost exactly the same question, with an explanation