drives_venue_searchSearch stadiums, arenas, and venues for delivery pickup with delivery fee information.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum results | |
| query | Yes | Venue name or city to search |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior. Description adds context about returning delivery fee information, but doesn't disclose additional behavioral traits beyond 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?
Single sentence effectively communicates the tool's purpose with no redundancy. Could be slightly more structured but is efficient and front-loaded.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (2 params, no output schema), the description provides core purpose and mentions delivery fee info, but lacks details on return format or pagination. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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 coverage is 100% with both parameters described. The description does not add any additional meaning or usage details beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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?
Description clearly states it searches stadiums, arenas, and venues for delivery pickup with delivery fee info, distinguishing it from the sibling tool drives_airport_search which likely focuses on airports.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like drives_airport_search. The description implies use for venue searches but does not specify exclusions or when-not scenarios.
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 aspect of the rental process: searching by location, vehicles, airports, venues; getting details, availability, reviews, quotes; and host profiles. No two tools overlap in purpose, ensuring clear agent selection.
All tools share the 'drives_' prefix and use snake_case, but the word order varies: some follow verb_noun (drives_get_quote, drives_search_vehicles), others noun_verb (drives_airport_search, drives_location_suggest), and some are noun_noun (drives_vehicle_availability, drives_host_showroom). This inconsistency makes the pattern less predictable.
With 9 tools, the server covers essential rental marketplace operations without excess. Each tool serves a clear role, and the count is well-scoped for its domain.
The tool set comprehensively covers browsing, searching, quoting, and reviewing vehicles, plus location and venue queries. A minor gap is the absence of a tool to create or manage bookings, but the server likely focuses on pre-booking information.