I think much of the commentary here is a bit overdone, and too critical towards the OP. The photos look more than satisfactory to me. In my area, there is no emphasis on quality real estate photo work done from the ground. The realtors just snap the shots themselves...even for $5 million homes. They don't consider photography to be worth anything, I guess. So they rely on the sex appeal of their agents, and that must work pretty well.
If you can actually get someone to pay you to do the photography, and you do a decent, honest job...and whoever is paying you is pleased, that's all that matters. Otherwise, you're raising real estate photography to some kind of high art form, and I'm not sure that's what it is. It's more a means to an end. The photos aren't seen by millions of people, as opposed to high fashion photography or other advertising photography (not that I do either of those myself). Just my two cents. I will grant you, if the property is a $20+ million mansion or something, then I guess I can understand all sorts of energy being expended on doing the actual photo work, and the critiquing of that work by the photo Da Vinci's of our time.
For most people buying/selling a home will be the most significant financial transaction of their lifetimes. Yet for some insane reason there are individuals and agents out there who believe the photos responsible for driving potential buyers to the property should be no higher quality than those for a $10 item on EBay.
I live in an area where many RE agents do take photos themselves, despite having relatively high home prices compared to most other areas of the country. I also am married to a very successful RE agent and through her know many other RE agents - both successful and not successful. I can share several observations.
1) Among the successful RE agents, every single one of them I know uses professional RE photographers. Many of them do not use me but instead other photographers - but all of them use some photographer. On the other hand, the vast majority of agents I know who take their own photos are not successful.
2) On a few occasions my wife has had to list a property with photos she took herself or someone else took. These were cases where we were on vacation or a property had to be listed before I could get to it. When I finally did photograph the property and she uploaded the professional photos, the traffic to the property increased significantly.
3) RE agents are not photographers. They will generally judge your photos next to theirs and it doesn't take much to impress them (though most of the highly successful ones are pickier). I look back at the photos I took when I was starting out and they were complete crap. Nevertheless, I had people rave about them. I even had sellers ask for copies and call me to personally thank me for taking such nice photos. It is our job as photographers to push ourselves to take the best photos possible. RE agents will often have good input such as "I need this angle", "make sure you photograph this because it is a selling point" or "I need these rooms and not those" but when it comes to actually taking the photo we are the ones who determine the quality.
4) You never truly know where your photos will be used. Most of them are just placed on the MLS and flyers - so they'll be seen by a few thousand people. I have had my photos used in the Wall Street Journal and Home Magazines though. One photo I would never have expected made the cover of a home magazine. The agent is free to use my photos to market the property in any way he/she likes.
Admittedly, I do this on the side to help pay for my equipment (but I have still photographed ~200 homes), but it is a serious business. It is very difficult to take high quality RE photos, but due to the money involved it is something that must be taken with care. So yes I do take offense when someone posts that they did a half ass job to sell someone's most important investment and writes it off as "good enough".