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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered; the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them by disclosing that matching is only against captions (not full statutory prose) and that the tool falls back to chapter-level matches when no section matches. 'Keyless' also sets auth expectations.

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?

Front-loaded with the verb and scope, and every sentence carries weight — the caption-matching caveat and the sibling routing are essential, not filler. The parenthetical verification note is slightly verbose but justified for setting expectations.

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?

With no output schema, the description takes on the return-value burden and handles it well: it explains results are matching sections (with citations), with chapter-level fallback. An agent knows both what it gets back and the natural next step, so nothing critical is 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both params including limit bounds, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by pinning down the query param's intended granularity (natural topic phrases like 'landlord security deposit') rather than citations, sharpening how the string should be formed.

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) plus resource (Iowa Code) and a precise scope: matching by TOPIC/keyword rather than citation, against official chapter/section CAPTIONS across all 16 titles. It actively distinguishes itself from siblings by naming ia_code_section for full text and clarifying that it is not a general-index or full-text search.

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?

Clear routing is given: search here by topic, then 'Use ia_code_section afterward for the full text of a result,' with concrete query examples. It does not explicitly state when NOT to use it (e.g., versus ia_code_titles), but the context is unambiguous for the primary use case.

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