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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it discloses that only published calculators are returned and that results carry trust metadata and a citation URL, which is useful. However, it says nothing about pagination, result limits, or auth requirements for a catalog search.

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, zero filler, with the core action and scope front-loaded before the return-value summary. Every clause 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 two-parameter read search with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (slug, name, summary, category, citation URL, trust metadata). Only pagination/limit behavior and explicit sibling routing are missing.

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 both parameters are already fully documented, including the empty-query behavior and the category slug example. The description only restates 'keyword and optional category' and adds no syntax or matching semantics beyond 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 names a specific verb (search) and resource (LogicCommons calculator catalog) and scopes it by keyword and category. It is clearly distinguishable from a schema-fetch or execution tool, though it never names its siblings get_calculator_schema/run_calculator to draw the boundary 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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative sibling tools. The only usage hint ('Empty returns the catalog') lives in the schema, not the description.

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