List Ad Account Pixels

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the ad-account scoping and the 'all' semantics, but it does not disclose pagination, permission requirements, or rate limits.

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 compact and front-loads the core behavior in the first sentence. The Args block is slightly redundant with the schema, but it is short, scannable, and does not add unnecessary noise.

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 simple list tool with one required parameter and read-only annotations, the description is mostly adequate. However, it omits any mention of pagination or the shape of the returned pixel list, and there is no output schema to compensate for that gap.

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 Args section gives ad_account_id a human-readable meaning that the schema lacks, which is useful. response_format is not repeated in the description, but the schema already documents its enum, default, and description, so the combined coverage is adequate.

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 opens with 'Lists all Meta Pixels for an ad account,' which gives a specific verb, resource, and scope. The word 'all' distinguishes it from singular pixel tools like meta_get_pixel and from mutation tools like meta_create_pixel or meta_delete_pixel.

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 prefer this tool over siblings such as meta_get_pixel, meta_get_pixel_stats, or meta_get_pixel_events. The agent must infer selection solely from the verb, and no exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.

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