Get Meta Pixel Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond stating it gets 'event volume stats'. No mention of permissions, rate limits, or behavior when data is missing, but annotations reduce the burden.

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 concise with a clear purpose statement and a bullet list of arguments. No unnecessary words or repetition. Front-loaded with the tool's critical use case.

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 6 parameters and no output schema, the description fails to explain the return format or content of the stats. It does not mention pagination, date range limits, or any edge cases. Annotations provide safety context, but for a data-returning tool, more output details are needed.

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 low (17%), but the description adds meaningful explanations for 5 of 6 parameters (e.g., ISO date formats, default aggregation). It omits the response_format parameter, but that parameter's schema already has a description. Overall, the description compensates well for the sparse schema.

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 verb 'gets' and the resource 'event volume stats for a pixel', with additional context about being critical for verifying pixel firing. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like meta_get_pixel and meta_get_pixel_events by focusing on stats, not general info or raw events.

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 for verifying pixel firing but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like meta_get_pixel_events or meta_get_pixel. No exclusions or comparative guidance is provided, which is a gap given the number of similar sibling tools.

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