upwork_search

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It adds useful behavioral context: data is public, sourced from Upwork's server-rendered search pages via a real browser-rendering backend, and results are normalized summaries. It implies a read-only web scrape but does not discuss potential rate limits or pagination behavior, making it reasonably but not fully transparent.

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 purpose, efficient enumeration of returned fields, and a valuable note on data source. No filler words.

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 2-parameter search tool with no output schema, the description is fairly complete: it states purpose, returns (including field list), and data source. It lacks explicit details on result sorting, page behavior, or error conditions, but the schema covers the page parameter. Slight gaps are acceptable for this complexity.

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?

Input schema is fully covered at 100% with clear descriptions for q and page. The description repeats the keyword notion but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 begins with 'Search Upwork job postings' – a clear verb+resource combination. It further specifies free-text keyword search and enumerates the returned normalized job summaries (title, budget, experience level, duration, posted date, description snippet, skill tags), distinguishing it from siblings like upwork_freelancer and upwork_job.

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 for when to use this tool (searching public Upwork job listings) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Given sibling tools like upwork_freelancer and upwork_job, the description could have stated 'use this for keyword search; use upwork_job for a specific posting.' Absent that, guidance remains implied.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.