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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered without the description. The text adds only the scope of the answer (three classification buckets), with no note on data vintage, jurisdiction limits beyond 'UNITED STATES', or lookup behavior.

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?

A single sentence, front-loaded with the jurisdiction marker 'UNITED STATES.', then the classification and its practical meaning. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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 one-parameter, read-only lookup with no output schema needed and annotations covering safety, the description gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly. A brief note on the return shape (the three regimes) is present, though nothing addresses staleness or edge cases like non-married buyers.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 100% schema description coverage, including accepted formats (name or two-letter code) and examples. The description adds nothing about the parameter, so the schema does the work and baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource and the exact classification it returns (community property / opt-in / common law), plus the practical domain (titling a home as a married couple). It is distinguishable from neighbors like property_tax_us or title_insurance_us, but it never names a sibling to route against.

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?

Usage is only implied through the phrase 'for buying and titling a home as a married couple', which signals the marital-property context. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to a related tool such as compare_states_us or state_overview_us.

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