List Contracts

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful return summary ('client info, earnings, and status') but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination behavior or how 'all contracts' interacts with limit/offset. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 Args, Returns, and Examples, making it easy for an agent to scan. The opening two sentences are somewhat redundant ('List your contracts on Upwork' and 'View all your freelance contracts with clients'), but overall length is appropriate and front-loaded with purpose.

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 there is no output schema, the description's Returns line provides necessary context about what the tool returns. All parameters are covered by the schema, and examples fill in common usage patterns. It could be more explicit about pagination or how to use returned contract IDs with get_contract, but an agent can invoke the tool correctly with the current information.

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%, so the schema fully documents every parameter. The description's Args section largely duplicates the schema rather than adding new semantics. It reinforces defaults and enum choices but provides no meaning beyond what the schema already gives.

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 ('List') and resource ('your contracts on Upwork'), and the second sentence reinforces the purpose: 'View all your freelance contracts with clients.' It doesn't explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like upwork_get_contract, but the plural 'list' vs. singular 'get' is a clear enough separation.

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 examples ('Active contracts only: status="active"' and 'All contracts: (no filters)') provide concrete context for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives such as upwork_get_contract, but the filtering examples give the agent practical invocation guidance.

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