proofpoint_threat_get_by_id

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds value by stating the return fields (threat type, classification, indicators), but it does not describe error behavior, rate limits, or explicitly confirm read-only semantics beyond the verb 'Get'. This is acceptable but not rich.

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 short sentences that are front-loaded with the primary action and then provide helpful return details. Every word earns its place with 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?

For a single-parameter, read-only lookup tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete. It explains both the purpose and the return values. It does not cover error conditions or edge cases, but those are not critical for such a simple tool, so it misses a perfect 5 only slightly.

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 schema already provides a full description of the single parameter threat_id, including format (SHA256 hash or Proofpoint threat ID). The description merely repeats 'threat ID' without adding further semantics, so it does not go beyond the schema, matching the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Get'), a resource ('detailed information about a specific threat'), and the key identifier ('by its threat ID'). It also lists the return contents (threat type, classification, indicators), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like campaign lookups or IOC list tools.

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 usage context: when you have a threat ID and want details about that specific threat. It is clear and direct, though it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, which keeps it just below a 5.

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