upwork_search_jobs

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does add one genuinely useful guarantee — 'All filters map to real Upwork search URL params (nothing is silently dropped)' — which tells the agent filters are honored rather than ignored, and it notes the return shape. However, it discloses nothing about authentication/session requirements, result ordering beyond the sort param, or pagination/rate-limit behavior for a 12-parameter network-backed tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, then return contents, then the filter guarantee. No filler, though the return-content sentence is partly redundant given an output schema exists.

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 12-parameter search tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin: it covers purpose and filter fidelity but omits auth/session expectations and any guidance on combining filters or default result behavior.

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 every parameter (query, sort, limit, budget_min/max, hourly_min, etc.) is already documented in the schema. The description adds no per-parameter meaning beyond the blanket claim that filters map to real URL params, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('Search') and resource ('jobs on Upwork') with the scoping condition 'matching the specified criteria'. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like upwork_get_job_details or upwork_get_proposals, though it does not name them explicitly.

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?

Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the discovery entry point that feeds upwork_get_job_details, but the description never says when to use this versus alternatives or what prerequisites (e.g. session validity) apply.

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