Get the exact coordinates and full address for a place using its place_id (returned from search_places). Call this after search_places to get lat/lng needed for fare estimates and booking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| place_id | Yes | The Google place_id from a search_places result |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It states the output (coordinates and full address) and the source of place_id, but doesn't mention potential error conditions, permissions, or side effects. The read-only nature is implied by 'Get' but not explicitly stated.
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 sentences, zero filler. The main action and usage context are front-loaded, and every word adds value.
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 a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return value (coordinates and address) and its purpose. It doesn't detail the exact output structure, but that's not necessary for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.
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% for place_id, and the description adds meaning by explaining that the place_id comes from search_places and that the resulting lat/lng are used for fare estimates and booking. This reinforces the schema and provides context beyond the raw field 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 gets exact coordinates and full address for a place, with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('place details' via place_id). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly linking to search_places and downstream use for fare estimates and 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Call this after search_places' and 'needed for fare estimates and booking.' It doesn't mention alternatives, but the sequential context and connection to sibling tools make the usage clear.
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 ride-booking workflow: searching places, getting place details, estimating fares, booking, canceling, checking current ride status, viewing history, and route info. There is no overlap or ambiguity between tool purposes.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., book_ride, get_fare_estimate, search_places). The naming is uniform and predictable, making it easy to infer the function of each tool.
With 8 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of booking rides in Africa. Each tool covers a necessary step in the user journey without redundancy or bloat, fitting comfortably in the ideal range.
The tool set covers the full ride lifecycle: search and details for locations, fare estimation, booking, canceling, current ride tracking, and history. A minor gap is the lack of ride modification (e.g., updating a destination) or payment method management, but these are not core to the primary flow.