Get Meta Pixel Stats

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the purpose of verifying pixel firing, which is useful context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as rate limits, default date ranges, or output structure. Given the annotations cover the main concerns, a 3 is appropriate.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence stating the purpose, followed by a clear and minimal argument list. No fluff, every word earns its place. It is appropriately concise for the tool's simplicity.

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 read-only stats tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, key parameters, and a typical use case. It does not specify default date ranges or the exact structure of the returned data, but those are not critical for a basic call. It is nearly complete, with minor gaps.

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 only 17% (only response_format has a description). The description compensates by clarifying each parameter: pixel_id is a string, start_time/end_time are ISO dates, aggregation defaults to 'event' and has options, and event provides an example ('Purchase'). This adds meaningful value beyond the schema, which lacks descriptions for most parameters.

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 verb ('Gets'), a clear resource ('pixel'), and the exact output ('event volume stats'). It also adds a use case ('critical for verifying pixel is firing') that distinguishes it from sibling pixel tools like meta_get_pixel (configuration) and meta_get_pixel_events (event details).

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 a clear usage context ('verifying pixel is firing') but does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. It implies a specific scenario but leaves it to the agent to infer that other pixel tools might be better for different tasks. No exclusions or alternatives are given.

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