Lists apartments currently advertised in one municipality, cheapest first, with the local median asking rent. Indicative figures for browsing only: they come from a portal feed and are not verified against the listing page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bfsId | Yes | Municipality to search in. | |
| limit | No | Maximum listings to return (1-25). | |
| rooms | No | Preferred size in rooms; re-ranks, never filters. | |
| surface | No | Preferred living space in m²; re-ranks. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and adds meaningful caveats: figures are indicative, sourced from a portal feed, and not verified against the listing page. It also discloses the sorting behavior ('cheapest first'), though it leaves out subtle behaviors like the re-ranking effect of rooms/surface, which are documented in the schema.
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 tightly written sentences: the first states the tool's core purpose and ordering, the second provides the important reliability caveat. There is no filler or repetition of schema details.
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 read-oriented search tool with fully documented parameters, the description explains what the caller gets (listings plus median rent) and its reliability limitations. It does not detail return structure, but no output schema exists and the listed information is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool; only error/edge-case behavior is missing.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already explains each parameter clearly. The description reinforces 'bfsId' as a single municipality and implies the sort order, but it does not add meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb ('Lists') and a clear resource ('apartments currently advertised in one municipality'), and adds distinct ordering ('cheapest first') and the local median rent. This clearly differentiates it from siblings like municipality_search, which target municipalities rather than rental listings.
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 that the data is for browsing only, implying it should not be used for verified decisions. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the sibling tools are sufficiently different in scope that the intended use case is evident.
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 has a broadly distinct role: municipality lookup, tax ranking, tax detail, tax calculation, apartment listings, and commute time. However, favorable_municipalities, municipality_detail, and tax_lookup all touch tax comparison and could cause an agent to pick the wrong one without reading carefully.
All names are lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are noun-plus-operation (municipality_search, tax_lookup), while others are descriptive phrases (favorable_municipalities, commute_time). The names are readable but do not follow a consistent verb_noun convention.
Six tools is well within the ideal range and each one covers a meaningful step in the Swiss relocation/municipality-comparison workflow. None feel redundant or padding.
The toolset covers the core workflow: find a municipality, assess its taxes, compare it to a current home, check listings, and estimate commute time. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct way to combine commute filtering with tax ranking, but the surface is largely complete for its stated purpose.