proofpoint_threat_get_iocs

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It does say what is returned (URLs, IPs, domains, file hashes), but it omits critical details such as the requirement to provide either a campaign_id or time range, pagination behavior, and potential access requirements. This is a notable gap for a tool with all optional parameters.

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 sentence description with the primary action and resource front-loaded. Every sentence provides useful information without redundancy or filler, making it efficient and easy to parse.

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 read tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description gives the core purpose and return types, which is adequate baseline. However, it lacks explicit guidance on parameter interdependencies, output structure, and potential limits, so the agent may face ambiguity in real use.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds semantic value by clarifying the tool works 'for a specific campaign or time range,' which indicates the relationship between campaign_id, interval, and sinceTime. This helps an agent understand how to set parameters, so I score above baseline.

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 verb and resource: 'Get indicators of compromise (IOCs)' with scope 'for a specific campaign or time range.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like proofpoint_threat_get_campaign and proofpoint_tap_get_all_threats, which focus on other data.

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 when to use the tool (when you need IOCs for a campaign or time range) but does not explicitly address alternatives or exclusionary conditions. No mention of when not to use it or how it compares to similar threat-related tools, so guidance is only implied.

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