proofpoint_people_get_user_risk

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for disclosing behavior. It clearly indicates a read-only operation and specifies the output (risk score and attack details), but it omits nuances such as how the time window affects results or any prerequisites. It does not contradict any annotations, but the disclosure is minimal.

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 that gets straight to the point without any wasted words or redundant details.

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 tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the main purpose and return value ('risk score and attack details'). It could be more complete by elaborating on what constitutes 'attack details,' but the high schema coverage compensates, making it sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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%, as both 'email' and 'window' parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('risk score and attack details for a specific user by email address'). This distinctly differentiates it from sibling tools like proofpoint_people_get_vap and proofpoint_people_get_top_clickers.

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?

No explicit when-to-use guidance is provided, nor are alternatives or exclusions mentioned. The intended use is implied—retrieving risk for a specific user—but there is no comparison to other people-related tools or scenarios where this tool is preferable.

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