List address book entries

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true. The description adds useful behavioral context about pagination (cursor-based) and the total_count parameter's limitations on certain endpoints, which goes beyond the annotations.

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 very concise, two sentences plus a parenthetical note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then delivers specific, actionable tips. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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?

The description covers key use cases: listing, counting, filtering by date and metadata. It explains cursor-based pagination implicitly via parameter names (before/after). While it doesn't describe the return format, that is not required as there is no output schema. It is complete enough for typical usage.

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 coverage is 100% but the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains the efficient count pattern (include with limit 1), date filter syntax (ISO with gt/gte/lt/lte), and notes where total_count is not accepted. This provides practical guidance that the schema alone does not.

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 'List addresses stored in your Lob address book', which is a specific verb (list) and resource (address book). It distinguishes from sibling list tools like lob_bank_accounts_list by focusing on addresses.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool, including patterns for counting (include total_count with limit 1) and filtering by date or metadata. It notes that total_count is not accepted on nested endpoints, giving clear context. Could be improved by naming specific alternatives for counting other resources.

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