postgrid_verify_address

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It clearly states the tool verifies an address and returns verified, corrected, or failed status, and it adds the useful detail that corrected results include a before/after diff. It does not discuss side effects or external call behavior, but the verification semantics are reasonably well disclosed.

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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and scope, then efficiently communicates the return statuses and the diff detail.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the key facts an agent needs: single-address scope, US/CA geography, and the three outcome categories. It could be more detailed about the shape of the corrected-address response, but the provided outcome summary is a solid foundation for selecting and invoking the tool.

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?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all seven parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's existing coverage, such as precedence rules between freeformAddress and structured fields.

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 uses a specific verb ('Verify'), identifies the resource ('single US/CA address'), and names the provider ('PostGrid Address Verification'). It distinguishes this tool from the related batch sibling by explicitly saying 'single', and it also previews the three possible result statuses.

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 gives clear context: this is for verifying one US/CA address, which implicitly separates it from postgrid_verify_addresses_batch and autocomplete-style tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool.

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