Search Onshape documents

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, covering the read-only safety profile. The description adds 'Find documents by name' and the pre-creation workflow hint, but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as return format or matching semantics. With annotation coverage, this is adequate but not rich.

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 with zero filler. The core action ('Find documents by name') is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence provides a relevant, actionable usage tip. Every word earns its place.

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 search with two fully documented parameters and no output schema, the description plus schema cover the essential calling context. The workflow tip adds practical value. It could mention the nature of the returned result list, but the lack of an output schema makes this less critical.

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% for both 'query' and 'limit', so the schema already fully documents the parameters. The description's 'by name' aligns with the query parameter description but adds no new semantic meaning beyond what is already in the schema.

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 uses the specific verb 'Find' with the resource 'documents' and the search criterion 'by name', clearly distinguishing it from siblings like onshape_list_documents (which would list all documents) and onshape_get_document (which fetches by ID). It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 explicit workflow guidance: 'Search before creating, so repeated runs do not make duplicates,' which tells the agent when to use this tool relative to create_document. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., when listing all documents), so it stops short of a 5.

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