Get Meta Pixel Details

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

The description misrepresents the 'response_format' parameter, claiming values 'json' or 'text' while the schema defines 'markdown' or 'json' with a default of 'markdown'. This is a factual error that could mislead the agent. Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent, but the description adds no further behavioral context and introduces misinformation.

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 very short and front-loaded, but it omits critical details and contains an error. Conciseness is acceptable, but the structure could benefit from additional clarifying sentences, such as what 'details' are returned or a note about the default format.

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 and relatively low schema description coverage (50%), the description should provide more context about the returned details. It fails to explain what constitutes 'details' (e.g., pixel name, ID, created time) or any usage constraints. The response_format mismatch further undermines completeness.

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 description adds minimal value for 'pixel_id' (just 'Pixel ID', which is redundant) and incorrectly describes 'response_format' values. The schema covers 50% of parameters descriptively, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions and introduces a contradiction, reducing reliability.

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 'Gets details for a single Meta Pixel,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from 'meta_list_pixels' (list all) and 'meta_delete_pixel' (delete), but a slight mismatch in response_format values (description says 'json' or 'text' while schema says 'markdown' or 'json') slightly undermines clarity.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'meta_get_pixel_events' or 'meta_get_pixel_stats'. It assumes the agent infers usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient given the large number of sibling tools.

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