meta_ads_pixels_get

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

The description declares the tool as 'Read-only', which is a key behavioral trait. It also lists the fields returned. Since no annotations are provided, the description adequately conveys the safe, non-destructive nature of the 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?

The description is three sentences: first states purpose, second lists fields, third gives usage guidance. It is front-loaded, efficient, and contains no redundant information.

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 simplicity, the description covers purpose, when to use, and return fields. No output schema exists, but the description lists the fields, which is sufficient for an agent to understand the result structure.

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% and both parameters are already well-described in the input schema. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it only repeats the pixel_id description. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 it fetches the full detail record for a single Meta Pixel, lists specific return fields, and distinguishes from sibling tools like meta_ads_pixels_list (which lists pixels) by focusing on a single pixel's detail.

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 to call this tool to verify pixel setup before diagnosing conversion tracking issues or relying on the pixel for audience rules. While it doesn't mention when not to use it, it provides a clear, actionable scenario.

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