proofpoint_tap_get_clicks_blocked

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It clarifies the meaning of "blocked" but does not disclose any behavioral details such as response format, pagination, time window constraints, or relationship to other TAP data. It essentially restates the tool's name without adding operational expectations.

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?

Two short sentences with no redundant filler. The description immediately states the tool's purpose and provides a clarifying definition, earning its place without excessive length.

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 is minimal and lacks important context for a tool with no output schema and no annotations. It does not mention that time-based parameters are available (though optional), what the result set looks like, or how this tool relates to other TAP threat and message tools. An agent might not know if this is the right tool without deeper investigation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters are already well-documented. The description adds no further parameter context beyond what the schema provides, which aligns with the baseline score of 3.

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?

Clear verb+resource: "Get blocked clicks on threat URLs" specifically indicates the resource (threat URLs) and the filtered state (blocked). This differentiates from the sibling tool proofpoint_tap_get_clicks_permitted, which handles the opposite outcome.

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 this tool is used when you need information about clicks that were prevented from reaching malicious destinations, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like proofpoint_tap_get_clicks_permitted. No exclusions or context comparisons are provided.

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