lob_us_autocompleteSuggest complete US addresses from a partial primary line — useful for address entry. Non-mutating. Lob API: POST /v1/us_autocompletions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | Optional city to narrow suggestions. | |
| state | No | Optional 2-letter state to narrow suggestions. | |
| zip_code | No | Optional ZIP to narrow suggestions. | |
| address_prefix | Yes | Partial primary line, e.g. '185 Berr'. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no new behavioral info beyond the readOnlyHint annotation; it repeats 'non-mutating' without detailing side effects, permissions, or error conditions.
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 concise with two focused sentences: the first states the purpose and usefulness, the second specifies non-mutating nature and the API endpoint. No wasted words.
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?
Given the low complexity, full schema coverage, and present annotations, the description adequately covers the tool's purpose and constraints. It lacks details on output format but that is acceptable without an output schema.
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?
All parameters have descriptions in the input schema (100% coverage). The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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 'suggest', the resource 'complete US addresses', and the scope 'from a partial primary line'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like verification and zip lookup by being for address entry autocompletion.
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?
Indicates 'useful for address entry' and that it is 'non-mutating', but does not explicitly state when to avoid using it or provide alternatives like verification tools.
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.