Get Job Recommendations

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

Annotations already communicate that this is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds that results depend on profile/history and algorithmic matching, but it does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as possible variation over time, rate limits, or response-shape details beyond the basic 'list of recommended jobs.'

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, elaboration, and compact Args/Returns sections. Some redundancy exists between the first two sentences, and the Args section restates schema information, but overall the description is appropriately sized and easy to scan.

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 two optional parameters, full schema coverage, and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's purpose, output type, and parameter defaults, though it does not enumerate the fields included in each recommended job or explicitly distinguish its return shape from a search result.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the description essentially repeats the schema's parameter details (defaults, max, enum values). It adds no meaning beyond what the input schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Get personalized job recommendations based on your profile and history.' It also clarifies that results are algorithmically matched to the user's skills and experience, which differentiates it from sibling tools like upwork_search_jobs or upwork_get_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 implies the tool is for personalized, algorithm-driven recommendations rather than active searching or fetching a specific job, but it never explicitly says when to prefer this tool over siblings like upwork_search_jobs. There are no stated exclusions or alternative routing cues.

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