lob_verify_intl_addressValidate & standardize a non-US address. country (2-letter ISO code) is required. Non-mutating (no mail sent). Lob API: POST /v1/intl_verifications.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| city | No | ||
| state | No | State / province / region. | |
| country | Yes | 2-letter ISO country code, e.g. 'GB', 'DE', 'CA'. | |
| postal_code | No | ||
| primary_line | Yes | Primary delivery line. | |
| secondary_line | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Description states 'Non-mutating (no mail sent)' and provides the API endpoint, adding context beyond annotations. Contradicts nothing and aligns with readOnlyHint=true.
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 concise sentences: first for purpose, second for required param and safety. No fluff; every word earns its place.
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?
Minimally covers purpose, required param, and safety. Lacks details on return values (no output schema) and error handling, but adequate for a straightforward verification tool with good annotations.
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?
With only 50% schema description coverage, the description should compensate but only mentions the country parameter and its ISO requirement. Other parameters (city, state, postal_code) receive no description, limiting value.
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?
Clearly states the tool validates and standardizes non-US addresses. The verb-resource pair is specific and distinct from siblings like lob_verify_us_address.
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?
Specifies that the country parameter is required and clarifies the tool is non-mutating. Implicitly distinguishes from US-only verification via sibling names, though no explicit when-not-to-use guidance given.
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.