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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/destructive=false/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context: 'Keyless' (no API credential needed) and the static, bounded nature of the result (exactly 16 titles), which tells the agent this is a cheap deterministic lookup.

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: the first defines the payload with a concrete example, the second is the routing instruction. The most important content (what is listed) is front-loaded.

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 usefully sketches the return shape (official names + chapter ranges) via example, which is enough for a static reference list. Minor gap: it does not say whether the output is machine-parseable structure vs. prose, though for a fixed 16-item list this is low risk.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing further the description needs to disambiguate. The example object in the schema is empty, consistent with a no-argument lookup.

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+resource (list the 16 titles of the Iowa Code) and immediately conveys scope with the count and a concrete example (Title XVI, chapters 687-916). It is clearly distinguishable from ia_code_search and ia_code_section, which operate at chapter/section granularity.

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?

Explicitly names the situation that selects this tool ('when you know the subject but not the chapter/section number') and routes to the sibling ia_code_search as an alternative. It does not state when *not* to use it (e.g., when the chapter is already known, use ia_code_section), so it stops just short of full when/when-not coverage.

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