Search Immoswipe blog/guide articles about Swiss housing: renting tips, expat relocation guides, buying advice, deposits, tenancy law. Use for "how to" / advice questions. Returns titles, slugs and links; use get_guide to read the full article.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional keyword to filter articles by title/preview | |
| locale | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the disclosure burden. It states the return format (titles, slugs, links) and that get_guide is needed for full content, giving expectations about output. It doesn't explicitly say it's read-only, but 'Search' implies a safe read operation, so this is adequate.
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 two sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the verb and resource, gives practical examples, and ends with a clear pointer to a sibling tool. Every sentence earns its place.
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 optional-parameter search tool, the description covers the purpose, usage, and output format. The main gap is the unexplained 'locale' parameter, which could affect search results. Otherwise, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke it 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 only 50%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. It partially does by implying 'query' filters articles, but it never mentions the 'locale' parameter or its effect. The description adds little beyond the schema's existing query 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 searches blog/guide articles about Swiss housing, with specific topics like renting tips and tenancy law. It distinguishes from siblings: get_guide reads full articles, and search_listings handles property listings, so the purpose is unambiguous.
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?
It explicitly says 'Use for "how to" / advice questions', giving a clear trigger for when to invoke this tool. It also directs users to get_guide for reading the full article, providing an actionable alternative for the next step.
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 serves a clearly distinct function: searching listings, retrieving property details, finding similar/popular listings, checking availability, assessing rental chances, joining the tenant pool, and accessing FAQs/guides. No two tools overlap in purpose, and the workflow between check_rental_chances and join_tenant_pool is explicitly documented.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern in lowercase snake_case. Most retrieval operations use the 'get_' prefix (get_faqs, get_guide, get_listing_detail), while search_guides and search_listings use 'search_', and the two non-retrieval operations use 'check_' and 'join_'. This consistency makes the API predictable and easy to navigate.
With 10 tools, the server falls squarely in the well-scoped range (3-15). The tools cover discovery (search, popular, similar, detail), specialized assessment (rental chances), booking availability, tenant pool registration, and content retrieval (FAQs, guides) without unnecessary duplication or bloat.
The tool set comprehensively covers the tenant-facing workflow: searching properties, viewing details, checking availability, assessing rental chances, and optionally joining the tenant pool. Minor gaps exist in property management operations (e.g., no create/update/delete for listings) but these are out of scope for the platform's apparent consumer focus.
