get_email_security_phishguard_reports

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it offers only the read implication of 'Get'. It does not state what a Phishguard report contains, whether results are paginated, time-bounded, or scoped to the account, or what the response looks like.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It is appropriately brief for a one-parameter tool, though the brevity comes at the cost of semantic richness in other dimensions.

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?

Although the tool is structurally simple (one required parameter, no nested objects), there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain what the agent will receive. It never defines what a Phishguard report is or what shape the results take, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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% and the single account_id parameter is described in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning about how account_id is used beyond what the schema already states.

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 ('Get') with a named resource ('email security Phishguard reports'), making the basic operation understandable — retrieving reports for a particular email security sub-product. However, it does not differentiate this from adjacent email-security siblings like list_email_security_submissions or list_email_security_investigate, and 'reports' is never unpacked.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this tool versus the many related email security tools in the sibling list. No context, exclusions, or alternative tool names are mentioned, leaving the agent to guess which retrieval path is appropriate.

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