audience.pixels.get

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost nothing: no statement that it is read-only, no authentication or permission requirements, no error behavior for a missing/foreign pixel_id. Only the word "get" weakly implies a non-mutating read.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource and lookup key front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though efficiency here partly reflects under-specification rather than deliberate economy.

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 two-parameter getter with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least identify what the returned pixel representation contains and how "fields" narrows it. Instead it gives one clause, leaving the agent to guess at the response shape and permission model.

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 0%, so both parameters are undocumented anywhere. "By id" minimally maps to pixel_id, but the optional "fields" array (a field-selection projection) is never explained, leaving half the parameters opaque.

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?

"Get pixel by id" states a specific verb (get) and resource (pixel) with the lookup key made explicit, so the operation is unambiguous. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling audience.pixels.list, nor explain what a "pixel" is in this product context.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no routing to the obvious alternative audience.pixels.list when the id is unknown. The agent must infer the single-item vs list distinction purely from the name.

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