meta_ads_pixels_events

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool is read-only and describes the output fields, but it does not mention rate limits, data freshness, authentication requirements, or error scenarios. The disclosure of read-only behavior adds value, but more detail is needed for full transparency.

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 concise, front-loading the main purpose and output in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance and a sibling reference. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 list-type tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, output fields, and usage context. It lacks details on pagination or limits, but the mention of sample payloads and explicit return fields makes it fairly 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?

The input schema has 100% coverage and already describes the parameters (account_id optional with format, pixel_id required). The description does not add extra semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema coverage is high and no additional parameter insights are provided.

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 action (lists distinct event types), the resource (pixel events), and the output fields (event_name, sample_count, etc.). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool meta_ads_pixels_stats by mentioning its specific use case for auditing event types and inspecting parameter names.

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 provides explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Use this to audit which standard events and custom events are firing') and when not to use it ('For aggregate volume over time use meta_ads_pixels_stats'), offering a clear alternative.

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