root_data_faqAnswer common public questions about Root Data services, DSO directories, dental practice benchmarks, AI Coach, integrations, privacy, demos, and pricing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states that the tool answers questions and lists topics, but does not explain how answers are generated, whether sources are cited, what the output format is, or how parameters affect results. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant gap.
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 concise sentence (19 words) that front-loads the purpose and lists topics without any redundant phrases. Every word contributes to defining the tool's scope.
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 tool is simple, but the description omits behavioral specifics such as return format, parameter usage, and expected output. Since there is no output schema or annotations, the description should explain what the agent receives and how the tool behaves. The topic list provides some context, but gaps remain, making it minimally adequate.
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 schema has two parameters (limit, query) with no descriptions, and the description does not mention them at all. With 0% schema coverage, the description must compensate, but it provides no guidance on what 'query' should contain or what 'limit' controls. The agent cannot infer meaningful parameter semantics from the description.
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 answers common public questions and enumerates specific topics, distinguishing it from sibling tools like search_dsos and list_top_dsos. The verb 'Answer' and the resource 'common public questions' make the purpose specific and actionable.
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 an FAQ tool but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of 'use for general questions' or comparisons to siblings. The role is inferred from the name and context, so the usage guidance is implied rather than explicit.
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.