fetchRetrieve the full content of a single Tu Lugar listing by its id (from a search result). Returns title, full text description, specs, and the canonical URL.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Listing id returned by `search`. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so description adds value by listing returned fields. No contradictions, but does not disclose any additional traits like rate limits or authentication.
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 packed with all necessary information: action, resource, source of id, and return fields. No waste.
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 read-only tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers what it does and what it returns. Minor gap: does not distinguish from sibling 'get_listing'.
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 already describes the 'id' parameter as 'Listing id returned by search.' The description repeats this context but adds no new semantic value, so baseline 3.
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?
Clear verb 'Retrieve' and resource 'Tu Lugar listing' with specific return fields. However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'get_listing' which may serve a similar purpose.
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?
Only implies usage after a search but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor mentions alternatives.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between 'search' and 'search_listings', and between 'fetch' and 'get_listing'. However, descriptions effectively differentiate them.
Naming follows multiple patterns: verb_noun (create_listing), noun (closing_costs), get_*, search_*, my_*. While each pattern is internally consistent, the mix reduces overall consistency.
39 tools is relatively high, but they cover a broad set of real estate functionalities. The count feels slightly heavy but is justified by the domain scope.
The tool set covers the full lifecycle of listings (CRUD, promotion, sharing), account management, search with multiple filters, market data, guides, and lead management. No obvious gaps for the platform's purpose.