meta_ads_pixels_get

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and lists the returned fields, which informs the agent of the safe, non-mutating behavior. However, it does not mention error handling or permission requirements, a minor gap for a simple get.

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 waste. The first sentence states purpose and returns fields; the second provides a concrete usage scenario. It is front-loaded and informative.

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 single-resource get tool, the description is complete: it lists the return fields, states the read-only behavior, and gives a practical use case. With no output schema, the explicit return field list compensates. Parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema.

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%, with descriptions for both parameters, including the fallback behavior of account_id. The tool description does not add meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 the tool fetches the full detail record for a single Meta Pixel, naming multiple specific return fields. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like meta_ads_pixels_list by focusing on a single pixel's full 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?

Explicitly instructs when to call it: to verify pixel setup before diagnosing conversion tracking issues or relying on the pixel for audience rules. It does not mention explicit alternatives or when not to use, but the context is clear.

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