upload_listing_imageUpload a listing image by URL. Fetches the image, optimizes it, and returns hosted Tu Lugar image URLs to pass into create_listing.images[] or edit_listing.images[]. Rejected if the image fails property-photo moderation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | Public https URL of the source image |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not destructive (destructiveHint=false). The description adds valuable behavioral context: the image is fetched, optimized, and subject to moderation, which helps the agent anticipate side effects beyond what annotations provide.
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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no extraneous information. 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?
Given the tool has one parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward purpose, the description fully covers what an agent needs: input type, processing steps, output usage, and failure condition. It is complete.
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% with a clear description for the 'url' parameter. The description repeats 'by URL' but adds no further format or constraint details. Baseline 3 is appropriate as schema already covers parameter meaning.
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 action ('Upload a listing image by URL'), specifies the process (fetches, optimizes, returns hosted URLs), and indicates the output's purpose (for use in create_listing or edit_listing). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_listing or edit_listing.
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 context on when to use the tool (before create_listing or edit_listing) and mentions a failure condition (moderation rejection). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, which is acceptable given the clear purpose.
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.