lob_list_addressesList saved address records, newest first. Lob API: GET /v1/addresses.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | Cursor for the next page (from a previous response's next_url). | |
| limit | No | Max results per page (1–100). Default 10. | |
| before | No | Cursor for the previous page (from a previous response's previous_url). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so no destructive behavior. The description adds 'newest first' ordering and the API endpoint but does not disclose pagination behavior beyond what the schema parameters imply, nor rate limits or authentication needs.
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: one for purpose/ordering, one for API endpoint. No fluff, front-loaded with key action and resource.
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?
Lacks details on response format or return fields, which is not covered by output schema (absent). For a simple list operation with pagination parameters, the description is minimal but functional.
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 covers all three parameters with clear descriptions (cursor-based pagination, limit). The description adds no extra parameter information. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3.
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 verb 'List' and the resource 'saved address records', and specifies ordering 'newest first'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like lob_get_address (single address) and lob_create_address (creation).
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as lob_get_address for a single address or lob_list_letters for other resources. The description does not mention exclusions or prerequisites.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action, with clear verb-noun names like create_address and verify_us_address. There is no overlapping functionality, and even similar operations (e.g., list for different resources) are distinct.
All tools share the 'lob_' prefix and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_postcard, list_letters, verify_intl_address). Multi-word nouns use underscores, maintaining uniformity throughout.
With 18 tools, the set covers the primary mail fulfillment operations—address management, postcards, letters, checks, self-mailers, and address verification—without feeling bloated or sparse. The count is well-suited to the domain.
The tool set has notable gaps: no create_check or create_self_mailer, no cancel for letters or checks despite being referenced, no update/delete for addresses, and only list for templates. These missing operations will likely cause agent failures in common workflows.