proofpoint_reports_executive_summary

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It openly describes the report contents, but it does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, permissions required, or any operational constraints. The 'Get' verb implies a safe read operation, but the description could still offer more explicit transparency about side effects.

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 three sentences, concise, and front-loaded with the primary action. Every sentence adds value: the first states the purpose, the second defines the audience, and the third lists key contents. No redundancy or filler.

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?

This is a simple tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema. The description adequately covers the purpose, audience, and key content areas, leaving no significant gaps for this level of 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?

The input schema fully describes the only parameter 'window' with an enum and default value, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional insight into the parameter beyond what the schema already provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 the resource 'executive summary report', clearly stating what the tool does. It also differentiates from sibling report tools by describing the content as high-level security posture suitable for management reporting, including threat trends, top targeted users, and effectiveness metrics.

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 clear context by stating it is 'suitable for management reporting', indicating when this report is appropriate. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tool or exclusions among the many report siblings.

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