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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, non-destructive. The description adds value beyond them: it discloses the return structure (statute text, amendment history, cross-references as separate fields), historical-edition behavior via the year param, and that the endpoint is keyless.

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 core action, and each sentence adds something (return fields, historical editions, keyless access, example queries). It is dense and slightly list-like toward the end but no sentence is wasted.

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 carries the return-shape burden and does so (three named returned fields). Both params are covered, the historical-edition option is explained, and auth ('Keyless') is stated — nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by explaining what citations map to real content ('714.2 is degrees of theft', '321J.2 is OWI') and by clarifying the year param returns a 'historical edition instead of the current one'.

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 and resource — 'Get the FULL TEXT of a section of the Iowa Code' — by citation. The addition that it returns statute text plus amendment history and cross-references distinguishes it from ia_code_search and ia_code_titles without needing to open either.

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?

Gives concrete trigger queries ('what does Iowa Code 714.2 say', 'Iowa OWI law') and a use case (checking a statute a case relies on), so usage is clear. It never names the alternative siblings (ia_code_search / ia_code_titles) or states when NOT to use this tool, 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.