proofpoint_events_get_stats

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 only mentions that the tool returns counts, but omits important operational constraints such as the limited time window (sinceSeconds max 3600) and how the parameters interact. This leaves the agent without knowledge of applicable limits or edge cases.

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 front-loaded with the action and result, containing no filler or redundant wording. Every word adds value, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 straightforward stats tool, the description clearly states the output categories and time-period context, but it does not mention the time-window limitation (e.g., maximum 1 hour via sinceSeconds) or any other behavioral constraints. Given the lack of annotations and output schema, some gaps remain in completeness.

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?

Since all parameters are documented in the schema (100% coverage), the baseline is 3. The description adds only the generic phrase 'over a time period', which does not explain how interval, sinceTime, and sinceSeconds relate to each other or the enforced maximum range. It meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 verb ('get') and resource ('detection event statistics'), and it enumerates the returned metrics (spam, phishing, malware, impostor counts). This specificity distinguishes it from sibling event tools like proofpoint_events_list or proofpoint_events_get_details.

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 obtaining aggregate detection counts but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or context about preferring this over list/detail endpoints. It conveys a clear but implicit use case, matching the 'implied usage' tier.

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