proofpoint_reports_org_summary

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. It only mentions that the tool 'returns' metrics, but does not disclose side effects, required permissions, rate limits, or any other behavioral traits. As a read-only report it is likely safe, but that is not explicitly stated.

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, well-structured sentence that states the purpose and the key output metrics without any redundant words. Every component earns its place.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains what the tool does and what metrics are returned. It lacks explicit usage context and behavioral details, but the simplicity of the tool mitigates this.

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 has 100% coverage of the single parameter 'window', including its enum values and default, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. The baseline of 3 applies because the schema already provides the necessary detail.

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 purpose with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('organization security summary'), and enumerates the returned metrics (total messages processed, threats blocked, quarantined, delivered). This distinguishes it from sibling report tools like threat_summary and mail_flow, which focus on different aspects.

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 implies the tool is used for obtaining an organization-level security summary, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over the many sibling report tools (e.g., threat_summary, mail_flow, executive_summary) or any exclusions.

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