Validate identity for an address

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description's addition of 'returns whether recipient is associated' adds specific behavioral context. However, it lacks details on error handling, response structure, or rate limits beyond what annotations imply.

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 efficient sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, no redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema and 7 parameters, the description is minimal. It explains the core action but omits parameter constraints (e.g., zip_code format), output details (e.g., boolean or match level), and edge cases. Adequate but not thorough.

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 only 29%, so the description must compensate. It identifies recipient as the name and primary_line as the address, but does not explain secondary_line, city, state, or zip_code beyond being part of the address. The 'extra' parameter is mentioned in schema but not described.

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 tool validates a person/business name against a US address and returns association, which precisely defines its function and distinguishes it from address verification siblings like lob_us_verifications_create.

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 implies usage for US-based identity verification but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like lob_intl_verifications_create or explain when to choose this over address-only verifications. No when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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