meta_ads_pixels_get

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

The description declares the tool is 'Read-only' and enumerates the fields returned (id, name, code, creation_time, last_fired_time, owner_business, data_use_setting, linked ad_accounts). With no annotations provided, the description effectively conveys the tool's safety and output details.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core functionality and key return fields. Every sentence adds value, with no redundancy 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?

Given no output schema, the description compensates by listing return fields. It covers purpose, usage, and behavior. It is complete for the tool's complexity, though it could mention prerequisites (e.g., pixel must exist) or error handling.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description mentions pixel_id is required and that account_id is optional with a fallback, but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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 'Fetches the full detail record for a single Meta Pixel' and lists specific fields returned. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by specifying it is for a single pixel (not listing all pixels) and provides a concrete use case (verify pixel setup).

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 explicitly advises when to call the tool: 'Call this to verify pixel setup (e.g. confirm last_fired_time is recent) before diagnosing conversion tracking issues or before relying on the pixel for audience rules.' It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternative tools, but the context of sibling tools provides that differentiation.

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