ad_manager_fb_get_pixels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic 'get' operation, such as what data is returned, whether pagination applies, or if successful retrieval depends on an existing integration. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also doesn't enrich them.

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 a single, short sentence with no filler. It gets straight to the point, making it easy to parse. Though extremely brief, it is not unnecessarily verbose, which is a positive for conciseness. It could be slightly more informative without losing structure, but it is well-formed.

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?

With no output schema and a simple get operation, the description provides insufficient context. It doesn't mention what the return value looks like (e.g., a list of pixel objects), whether an integration must exist first, or how the optional parameters affect results. For an agent to use this effectively, it needs to know what to expect from the call, which is 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 100%, so parameters (pageId, channel, igUserId, locationId) have descriptions. The tool description adds no semantic meaning about how these parameters relate or which are needed. The schema already describes them, so the description provides no additional value here. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high 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 'Get conversion pixels' clearly states the action (get) and the resource (conversion pixels), making the purpose unambiguous. The tool name and description together convey it retrieves conversion pixels within the Facebook ad manager context. It distinguishes itself from sibling get tools by specifying the resource type, though it doesn't elaborate on what a conversion pixel is.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or filtering logic. There is no explanation of whether pageId, igUserId, or channel are required or how they interact. An agent would not know when this tool is appropriate compared to other ad_manager_fb_get_* tools.

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