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

readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true already tell the agent this is a safe, live-data read, so the description need not re-establish that. It adds that 'zuletzt gefeuert' is a firing-status signal, but says nothing about auth requirements, result limits, or empty-result behavior.

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: the resource and its key fields first, the parameter note second. No filler, though the parameter note could have been folded more tightly into the first clause.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be spelled out, and the description still names the most decision-relevant fields. For a single-optional-param read tool with rich annotations this is essentially complete; only pagination/size expectations are missing.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so: it defines 'workspace' as the customer workspace slug and states it is optional when only one workspace exists. That is meaningful semantics absent from the schema; only the format of the slug itself is left implicit.

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?

Specific verb+resource: lists Meta pixels (Datasets) for ad accounts, and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, created, last fired). An agent can distinguish it from meta_create_pixel and meta_pixel_stats, though the siblings are never named explicitly.

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 parenthetical 'schnellster Check, ob ein Pixel Events empfängt' implies a monitoring use case that points away from meta_pixel_stats, but no alternative tool or when-not condition is stated. Usage must be inferred from the described output fields.

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