compare_dsosCompare two Root Data public DSO directory profiles by slug using public profile summaries, regions, websites, and public signal counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dso_slug1 | Yes | ||
| dso_slug2 | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It reveals the data sources (public profile summaries, regions, websites, signal counts) but does not state whether the operation is read-only, how missing or invalid slugs are handled, or what the output format looks like. Significant gaps remain for a tool with no structured 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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It conveys the action, target, and compared aspects in under 20 words, making it highly efficient.
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 two-param comparison tool, the description covers the core functionality and data used. However, with no annotations, output schema, or usage guidance, it lacks behavioral and edge-case details, making it adequate but not complete.
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 compensates by clarifying that both parameters are slugs for the two DSO profiles to compare. This adds meaning beyond raw param names, though it doesn't explain slug format beyond schema maxLength.
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 verb 'Compare' and the resource 'two Root Data public DSO directory profiles by slug', with specific attributes (summaries, regions, websites, signal counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like get_dso_profile, which fetches a single profile.
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 usage when comparing two specific DSO profiles by slug, but provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like get_dso_profile or search_dsos. No exclusions or alternative scenarios are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct action and resource type: search, get, compare, list, FAQ, and blog search are clearly separated, and entity types (DSO vs practice vs blog vs FAQ) are explicit. No two tools have overlapping purposes that could cause misselection.
Seven of eight tools follow the verb_noun pattern (compare_dsos, get_dso_profile, search_practices, etc.), while root_data_faq deviates as a noun phrase with no leading verb. This is a minor inconsistency in an otherwise predictable scheme.
With 8 tools, the set is well-scoped for a public directory server. Each tool earns its place, covering search, retrieval, comparison, ranking, and informational queries without redundancy or bloat.
For a read-only public directory, the surface is complete: both DSOs and practices have search and get operations, plus compare and list ranking for DSOs, and FAQ and blog search fill informational gaps. No critical operations are missing; optional search parameters ensure broad coverage.