proofpoint_url_decode

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the purpose and confirms it is a reversal operation, but does not specify any limitations (e.g., only works on Proofpoint's urldefense format), error behavior, or whether it requires special permissions. This is a minor gap for a simple non-destructive tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence adds value. The first states the action and result; the second provides useful background on why Proofpoint rewrites URLs. No wasted words.

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 simple single-parameter tool without an output schema, the description adequately conveys the input, the process, and the expected output ('original URLs'). It could be slightly more explicit about the return format, but given the low complexity, it is sufficiently complete to guide an agent.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage for the single 'urls' parameter with a clear description and an example. The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond restating that it decodes 'one or more' URLs, which is already implied by the array type. Baseline 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 tool's function with a specific verb ('decode'), the resource ('Proofpoint URL Defense rewritten URLs'), and the result ('back to the original URLs'). It also explains the context (Proofpoint rewrites URLs for click-time protection), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like proofpoint_url_analyze.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (when you have Proofpoint-encoded URLs and want the originals) and explains the mechanism ('reverses that encoding'). While it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, the use case is unambiguous for a simple decode operation.

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