Verify a US address

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

Annotations indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior. The description adds specific return value details (deliverability status, USPS-formatted components, geolocation, county info), which enhances transparency beyond annotations. No contradictions.

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 that is concise and informative. It front-loads the key action and output, with no unnecessary words. Every piece of information 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?

Given the 10 parameters and high schema coverage, the description adequately covers the purpose and outputs. It does not discuss error cases or prerequisites, but for a verification tool with read-only semantics and idempotency, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's functionality.

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 description coverage is 90%, so the schema already explains most parameters. The description does not add new semantics beyond what is in the schema. It reinforces that the tool handles a single US address, but that is already implied by the tool name. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Verify, correct, and standardize'), the resource ('a single US address'), and the outputs (deliverability status, USPS components, geolocation, county info). It differentiates from sibling tools like 'lob_bulk_us_verifications_create' by specifying 'single', and from 'lob_us_verifications_get' by being a creation/verification action.

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 use for single-address verification, contrasting with bulk operations available in siblings. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs others like 'lob_us_verifications_get' or 'lob_intl_verifications_create'. The context is clear but not exhaustive.

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