Recent pixel events

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

Annotations already declare a read-only, open-world, non-destructive operation, and the description goes well beyond them: a hard row cap of 50, a time window, the meaning of pixel_sdk vs server_to_server, and what an empty list versus a 404 signifies. That is exactly the diagnostic context an agent needs to avoid misreading a null result as failure.

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?

Three tightly packed sentences: scope and payload first, then usage exclusion, then result-interpretation edge cases. No redundant restatement of the name or title.

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, the description correctly takes on the return-value burden (event_type, api_channel, cap, window) and covers the two ambiguous outcomes, empty and 404. Nothing an agent needs in order to call or interpret this tool is left unstated.

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?

Only one parameter, and the schema already documents pixel_id with a pattern and a pointer to list_pixels at 100% coverage. The description adds the framing that results are scoped to a single pixel but no syntax or sourcing detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific resource (conversion events for a pixel), a bounded scope (up to 50, last ~15 minutes), and the returned fields with a decoding hint for api_channel. It also explicitly separates itself from reporting use, so an agent can distinguish it from list_pixels or list_conversion_event_settings without opening a schema.

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?

Gives a clear when-to-use (verifying that tracking arrives) and a when-not (not for reporting), plus how to interpret an empty result. It names no alternative sibling for the reporting case, which is the only missing piece.

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