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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description usefully adds the sort order (newest first), but says nothing about pagination behavior beyond what the schema already encodes, nor about rate limits or auth expectations. Moderately helpful against annotation coverage.

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 short clauses, zero filler, with the resource and ordering front-loaded. The API endpoint reference is compact and unambiguous.

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 list tool with a fully documented three-parameter schema and no output schema (so return values need not be explained), the description covers purpose and ordering adequately. Only the absence of usage routing and pagination context keeps it from a 5.

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 description coverage is 100%, and the three cursor/limit parameters are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no additional parameter meaning (e.g., how cursors interoperate with the ordering it mentions).

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 ("List saved address records") plus the ordering (newest first), so the agent knows exactly what this returns. It does not explicitly contrast with lob_get_address or lob_create_address, but the plural-list framing distinguishes it implicitly from those siblings.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of when to prefer this over lob_get_address, and no mention of prerequisites or scope limitations. The use case for listing is only implied by the verb itself.

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