tiktok_get_pixels

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It usefully discloses permission-gated event metadata and fallback with explicit warnings, but does not mention pagination, rate limits, required scopes, or failure modes beyond endpoint unavailability.

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 with no wasted words. The core action is front-loaded and the caveat about permissions and fallback is stated efficiently.

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 no annotations, the description explains the core listing purpose and fallback, but leaves the agent without details on return structure, pagination behavior, or how warnings are surfaced. It is adequate for a read-only listing tool but not fully complete.

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 80%, so parameter meanings are mostly already documented. The main description adds little beyond what the schema provides; the discovery logic it references is already captured in the pixelIds parameter description.

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 states a specific action ('List') and resource ('TikTok pixels'), and adds that pixel event metadata is included when permissions allow. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like tiktok_list_advertisers or tiktok_get_events, though it does not explicitly name any alternative.

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 guidance about when to prefer this tool over siblings or when it should not be used. The only usage-related hint is the fallback behavior when endpoints are unavailable, which is more behavioral than a selection criterion.

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