easypost_list_addressesList saved addresses on the account, with pagination. API: GET /addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after_id | No | Return records created after this address id. | |
| before_id | No | Return records created before this address id. | |
| page_size | No | Results per page (max 100). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the agent knows it's a safe read. The description adds that the tool supports pagination and references the underlying API, which provides some behavioral context but does not disclose other traits like rate limits or data freshness.
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?
The description is a single sentence that conveys the core functionality and API reference, with no extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficiently provides all necessary information.
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 read-only listing tool with good annotations and schema, the description is complete enough. It covers the key aspects: what the tool lists, pagination support, and the API method. The lack of output schema is not the description's responsibility.
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%, with each parameter (after_id, before_id, page_size) fully described in the input schema. The description does not add any additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: listing saved addresses on the account, which is specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like easypost_get_address or easypost_verify_address. The inclusion of 'with pagination' adds further clarity on the operation's scope.
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?
The description implies usage for retrieving all saved addresses, which contrasts with other address tools (e.g., get_address for a single address). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives, but for a simple list operation, the context is sufficiently clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool has a distinct purpose: address operations, shipment lifecycle (create, buy, refund, get, list), and tracking. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent `easypost_<verb>_<resource>` pattern using snake_case, with clear verbs like create, get, list, buy, refund, verify.
11 tools cover the essential operations for address management, shipment lifecycle, and tracking without being too many or too few.
Core workflows (rate, buy, refund, track, address verification) are complete. Minor gaps like missing delete for addresses or update for shipments are acceptable for the domain.