Get Meta Pixel Details

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, which already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint. It does not mention return format, pagination, permissions, or any side effects. The statement 'Gets details' simply reaffirms the read-only nature already captured by annotations.

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-loads the purpose in the first sentence. However, the Args section is redundant and contains the incorrect parameter values, which detracts from its efficiency. It still earns a 4 for overall conciseness and structure.

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 simple two-parameter tool and read-only annotations, the description is mostly adequate but incomplete. It lacks explanation of what 'details' means, does not clarify the response_format values correctly, and does not describe the return value, which is especially important since no output schema is provided.

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 incorrectly specifies response_format values as 'json' or 'text', while the input schema enum is ['markdown', 'json']. This is a factual error that could lead an agent to pass an invalid value. The 'pixel_id' description 'Pixel ID' adds no meaningful info beyond the parameter name.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Gets details for a single Meta Pixel.' It clearly distinguishes from list-type siblings by saying 'single.' However, it does not explicitly distinguish from get_pixel_stats or other detail-oriented tools, leaving some ambiguity about what 'details' includes.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as meta_list_pixels or meta_get_pixel_stats. The description only states what it does; the agent must infer usage from the tool name and sibling context, which is insufficient for complex decision-making.

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