proofpoint_tap_get_clicks_permitted

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only offers a high-level definition of the output data, but does not mention output format, pagination, required authentication, rate limits, or any side effects. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 extremely concise: two short sentences with no filler. Every word adds value, defining the action and the specific meaning of 'permitted'.

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 tool has moderate complexity with four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description is adequate for a basic understanding but lacks information about the response structure, how parameters combine (e.g., interval vs sinceTime), and any relationship to sibling tools. It is minimally viable but leaves gaps for an agent to fully use the tool.

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 provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, each with clear meaning (e.g., interval, sinceTime, sinceSeconds, threatStatus). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('permitted clicks on threat URLs'). It adds a clarifying clause defining permitted clicks as 'clicks that were allowed through to the destination', which explicitly distinguishes it from the sibling tool proofpoint_tap_get_clicks_blocked.

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 usage by defining what 'permitted' means, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like proofpoint_tap_get_clicks_blocked or when not to use it. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.

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