proofpoint_forensics_search_messages

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It fails to mention that the search is read-only or what the output looks like, nor does it discuss required permissions or limitations. The phrase 'find and remediate' might imply the tool itself remediates, which is misleading—it likely only searches, with remediation occurring in a separate step.

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 only two sentences and immediately states the primary action ('Search for messages across mailboxes') and the intended use. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, with 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?

Given the tool has 6 optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description leaves out critical context: what a successful search returns, whether at least one parameter is required, and any constraints on the search (e.g., date range). The description provides a use case but is not sufficient for an agent to reliably know what to expect or how to construct a valid search.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema; it doesn't explain how parameters interact or provide search examples. Since the schema already documents each parameter well, the description's lack of parameter guidance is acceptable but not additive.

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 searches for messages across mailboxes, with a specific purpose of threat response and remediation. It mentions 'search & destroy / auto-pull operations,' which provides context that distinguishes it from sibling tools like proofpoint_smart_search_trace or proofpoint_tap_get_messages_delivered, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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 includes a clear use case: 'Used for search & destroy / auto-pull operations to find and remediate delivered threats.' It gives context for when to use this tool, but it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or mention specific alternatives, so it falls short of a full 5.

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