search_practicesSearch Root Data's public dental practice directory. Supports query, service, location, city, state, minimum Google reviews, minimum star rating, and sorting by Google review count or rating. Returns published public listings only. All parameters are optional.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| stars | No | ||
| state | No | ||
| sortBy | No | ||
| reviews | No | ||
| service | No | ||
| location | 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 states 'Returns published public listings only' and 'All parameters are optional', both important constraints. It does not discuss pagination, default limits, or authentication, but the 'public' label implies no auth and the transparency is adequate for a search tool.
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 three sentences long, front-loading the primary purpose and then listing filters and constraints. Every sentence adds value, and there is no redundant or filler content.
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 search tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is sufficiently complete. It covers the core behavior (public, published-only listings), all optional parameters, and the available sorting options. Minor gaps like pagination behavior or default sort order are not critical for correct invocation, so this is above the minimum but not exhaustive.
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?
Since the input schema has no descriptions, the description compensates by explaining the meaning of most parameters: query, service, location, city, state, minimum Google reviews (reviews), minimum star rating (stars), and sorting by review count/rating. It omits 'limit' but that parameter is self-explanatory. This is solid semantic coverage for a schema with zero descriptions.
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 'Search Root Data's public dental practice directory' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search_dsos by focusing on practices rather than DSOs, and the mention of 'Returns published public listings only' adds scope.
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 gives clear context: it is used to search public dental practice listings, implying it is the right choice for practice lookups rather than DSO comparisons. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when not to use it, so it lacks the explicit exclusions needed for a 5.
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.