proofpoint_people_get_top_clickers

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. While it indicates a read operation ('Get') and describes the return value, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only, nor does it mention pagination, default parameters, or output structure. This leaves important behavioral traits undisclosed.

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 long, front-loaded with the action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every sentence adds meaningful context about the tool's purpose and output.

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?

The description explains the tool's purpose and indicates the type of output, but with no output schema and no annotations, it lacks details about the response format, sorting, or pagination behavior. It is adequate but not fully complete for a report tool with optional parameters.

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%, with each parameter (page, size, window) having a description including defaults and allowed values. The tool description adds no extra parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Get top clickers report') and clarifies the output ('Returns users who clicked on the most threat URLs'). It clearly communicates the tool's function, though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling people-related tools like proofpoint_people_get_vap.

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 a clear context: it identifies users who may need additional security training, implying when the report would be useful. However, it does not mention alternative tools or provide explicit exclusion criteria, 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.