Get Tracking Events

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It correctly signals a read operation ('Get'/'Retrieves') and scopes results to configured pixel and postback tracking events, but it does not mention pagination, authorization requirements, or potential empty results. That is a minor gap for a simple read tool.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core operation, followed by a clarifying detail about event types. No repetition or filler.

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 tool with only two parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides enough context to select and invoke the tool. It lacks only minor operational details like pagination or filtering behavior, which are not essential given the schema.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for both ad_account_id and os_filter (100% coverage). The tool description adds no parameter-specific guidance, so it earns the baseline score rather than extra credit.

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 operation ('Get all tracking events') on a specific resource ('an ad account') and clarifies the event types ('pixel and postback'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools focused on accounts, campaigns, ads, and reports.

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 gives clear context: use this tool when you need the configured pixel/postback tracking events for an ad account. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but none of the sibling tools serve this purpose, so the intended usage is clear.

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