snap_capi_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context the annotations do not: the two time windows, that INVALID entries carry Snap's stated reasons, and that the data set is test-only. It still says nothing about result volume, pagination, or what an empty window looks like.

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?

One dense sentence that front-loads the resource and its read-only nature, followed by the return shape and the parameter default. No filler, though the mixed clauses make it slightly harder to parse at a glance.

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 a single optional parameter and no output schema, the definition covers what an agent needs: what is returned, over which windows, what INVALID means, and the parameter default. Missing only operational detail such as response size or ordering for the 24-hour list.

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% for the single pixel_id parameter, so the description must carry the load. It does supply the one genuinely needed fact, that pixel_id defaults to SNAP_PIXEL_ID, which makes the optional parameter safely omittable, but adds no format detail beyond that.

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 names a specific resource and scope: Conversions API test-event status, including an hourly count and a 24-hour list with INVALID reasons. It is clear what the tool returns, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the sibling snap_capi_test_event, which likely submits rather than reports test events.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: it is a read-only diagnostic view and 'These are test events only, never real conversions' bounds what the data means. There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance relative to alternatives such as snap_capi_test_event.

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