proofpoint_reports_mail_flow

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the output concept (volume over time, disposition breakdown) but does not mention side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or data availability. For a read-only report, the lack of any statements about safety or operational behavior is a notable gap.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains zero redundant words. Every phrase adds information: 'mail flow report', 'email volume over time', 'breakdown by disposition'. It is an appropriately sized, efficient description.

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's simplicity (2 optional params, no output schema) and lack of annotations, the description provides the core concept but lacks detail on return format, filtering, or how this report relates to other reports. With no output schema, the description should be richer in describing expected results, but it only gives a high-level summary. It is adequate for simple use but not fully complete.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters (window and granularity) with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema, such as how to choose a window or granularity, or what the defaults mean. It does reference 'over time' which loosely maps to granularity, but no additional value is provided.

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 identifies the tool as 'Get mail flow report' and specifies the resource (email volume over time) and the breakdown by disposition. It distinguishes itself from sibling report tools by focusing on mail flow vs. organization, threat, or executive summaries, but does not 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?

Usage context is implied by the description: if you need email volume over time with disposition breakdown, use this tool. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to use this over other report tools, nor any mention of exclusions or prerequisites. The absence of alternatives or when-not-to-use leaves the agent to infer.

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