searchSearch Tu Lugar real estate listings by free-text query (location, neighborhood, or keywords). Returns a list of matching listings with id, title, and URL. Use fetch to get a listing's full content.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | Search phrase, e.g. "apartment in Villa Morra" or "Encarnación" |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns a list with specific fields, which is useful minimal context. No mention of pagination, result limits, or query handling, but given the simplicity, it 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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with action and result, no unnecessary words. Every sentence 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?
For a single-parameter search tool with annotations and a simple return type description, the description is fairly complete. It could mention pagination or result limits, but the tool's complexity is low enough that this is not a major gap.
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?
The schema description for 'query' is present (100% coverage). The description adds concrete examples ('apartment in Villa Morra' or 'Encarnación'), which aid understanding beyond the schema's generic 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?
Description clearly states it searches real estate listings by free-text query and returns id, title, URL. It mentions using `fetch` for full content, which distinguishes from that sibling. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling 'search_listings', which may have a similar function.
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 explicitly advises using `fetch` to get full content, providing a clear alternative when detailed information is needed. It implies the tool is for initial search but does not state when not to use it or mention other exclusions.
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.