get_pixel

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. The description only restates the purpose and adds no information about return format, error behavior, permissions, or side effects. For a read operation, basic expectations may be assumed, but the description is minimal.

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, front-loaded sentence that is concise and to the point. It contains no redundant information and earns its place without unnecessary verbosity.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (single parameter, no output schema), the description is minimal but not fully complete. It does not specify what 'details' are returned, and the lack of an output schema means the description should arguably clarify the return shape. However, for a simple retrieval tool, the vagueness is a minor gap.

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 provides 100% coverage of the single parameter 'id' with a description stating it is the 'Retargeting pixel ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but baseline 3 applies since the schema fully documents the parameter.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Get details of a single retargeting pixel'. The verb 'Get' and resource 'details of a single retargeting pixel' are specific, and the word 'single' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pixels or update_pixel.

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 implies usage when a single pixel ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus list_pixels or provide any exclusions or alternative guidance. Sibling tools suggest a clear list-vs-detail relationship, but the description itself lacks explicit direction.

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