Get Pixel Events

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

The tool already has annotations indicating it is read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent. The description adds minimal value by noting it is 'for debugging', which reinforces safety but does not provide new behavioral details about data limits or other constraints.

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 extremely concise—two sentences—and front-loaded with the action and purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no unnecessary text.

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 has two parameters and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the response_format parameter or clarify the time window for 'recent' events. The brevity leaves an agent unsure about usage details beyond the required pixel ID.

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 description coverage is 50%; only the required pixel_id is described in the description (with redundant 'Pixel ID'). The optional response_format parameter is not mentioned, and the description does not add meaning beyond the schema for pixel_id. It fails to compensate for the missing parameter guidance.

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 retrieves 'recent events' for a pixel and specifies the purpose 'for debugging'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like meta_get_pixel (getting pixel details) and meta_get_pixel_stats, though it could be more precise about what 'recent' means.

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 implies usage context by stating 'for debugging', but it does not explicitly guide when to use this tool versus alternatives like meta_test_conversion_events or meta_send_conversion_event. No exclusions or when-not scenarios are mentioned.

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