Rooster Agent Gateway

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about returning a handoff URL and the v1 limitation (payment settlement gated), which is useful. However, it does not clarify whether the tool itself has side effects (e.g., does it reserve anything?), and readOnlyHint=false suggests it might. No explicit contradiction, but the description could be more transparent about potential mutations.

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 concise sentences, with the core purpose front-loaded and the version context as a secondary note. Every word earns its place; no fluff or redundancy.

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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description should at least clarify the parameter's meaning and expected return structure. It states the return type (ReserveAction URL + phone) but not the format or any error conditions. The missing parameter explanation is a significant gap, making the tool only partially usable without additional context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'for a business' but never explicitly maps the 'id' parameter to a business identifier. The agent is left to infer that id refers to a business, which is a gap given the sibling tools likely take similar IDs.

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 states a clear action: returns the verified booking action (ReserveAction target URL + phone) for a business. It explicitly differentiates from siblings (discover_businesses, get_business) by focusing on booking handoff, and adds version context. The verb+resource is specific and unambiguous.

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 implies when to use it: when the user wants to complete a booking, by handing off to the booking action. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the sibling names (discover/get) make the purpose clear. It lacks explicit exclusions but the context is adequate.

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

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

readOnlyHint is true and the description indicates a pure search/return operation with no side effects. No contradictions. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but the read-only annotation covers the main behavioral transparency concern.

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?

Two concise sentences that state the purpose, filter options, and return fields without redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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?

The description lists the return fields (id, category, location, rating, verification status, booking action), compensating for the absent output schema. It does not mention pagination or result limits, but for a directory search tool the provided context is largely sufficient.

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?

Only category has a schema description, but the main description names all four filters: category, city, service area, and minimum rating. Parameter names are mostly self-explanatory, though min_rating lacks bounds/format and service_area could be ambiguous with city.

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?

Clearly states it searches the Rooster Agent Gateway directory of verified, bookable businesses and returns matching businesses. Distinct from sibling tools book and get_business by focusing on discovery/search rather than retrieval or booking.

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?

Description explicitly lists supported filters (category, city, service area, minimum rating), making the search use case clear. It does not explicitly contrast with get_business or book, but the search-oriented wording strongly implies when it should be used.

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

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

The readOnlyHint annotation is consistent with the 'Get' verb, and the description adds detail about the output content without contradicting the annotation. It does not mention destructive side effects or rate limits, but the read-only nature is already covered by the annotation, so the description provides useful additional context.

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 a single, compact sentence that lists the key components. It contains no redundant information and is well-structured for quick parsing.

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 simple tool with one parameter and readOnly annotation, the description provides sufficient context: it explains what the returned profile includes and where the id originates. No output schema is present, but this is not necessary given the explicit enumeration of returned data.

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 single parameter 'id' is described as 'business id / slug from discover_businesses', which offers clear provenance and format. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline is 3; the extra guidance about where the id comes from raises it to 4.

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 the verb 'Get' to specify the action and clearly identifies the resource as 'one business's full machine-readable profile' with enumerated components (schema.org @graph, manifest, services, FAQ, booking_action). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like discover_businesses (which likely lists businesses) and book (which likely performs a booking).

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 implies a prerequisite by stating the id parameter is 'from discover_businesses', which guides the agent to call the discovery tool first. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when a full profile is needed vs. a summary).

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