ghl_ad_fb_pixel_list

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the HTTP method (GET) and OAuth scopes, consistent with read-only behavior. However, it does not disclose additional behaviors such as pagination, response format, or error handling, so it adds limited value beyond 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 extremely concise: a clear purpose line, a brief explanation, and technical details in three lines. No redundant information, and all sentences earn their place.

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?

Despite conciseness, the description is incomplete for a list tool with 4 parameters and no output schema. It omits details about optional parameters, filtering, pagination, and the structure of the returned data. The agent would lack critical context to use the tool effectively.

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 100%, with all parameters described with examples. The description adds no extra parameter-level meaning, so baseline score of 3 applies. It does not explain relationships between parameters or optional usage.

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 'Get conversion pixels' and 'Retrieve Facebook conversion pixels for a location'. It specifies the verb 'Get' and resource 'conversion pixels', distinguishing it from sibling tools like ghl_ad_fb_pixel_upsert which handles creation/updates.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like pixel_upsert or other listing tools. It mentions 'for a location' but lacks guidance on filtering or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer from the name alone.

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