audience_get_pixel

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description only adds the notion that the result is derived from an authoritative list, which is marginal context rather than substantive behavioral disclosure (no error or auth behavior).

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource. It is efficient, but the dangling 'documented authoritative pixel list' clause adds words without adding clarity, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not required, and the tool is a simple single-param read. However, the description leaves pixel_id semantics and the source of authoritative pixels unexplained, which an agent would need to call it confidently.

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 0% and the single parameter pixel_id has no description anywhere. The description does not say where pixel_id comes from, its format, or what happens if it is unknown — it fails to compensate for the coverage gap, though one required id param keeps the impact limited.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Read one pixel') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling audience_list_pixels by scope (one vs. many). The trailing phrase 'by filtering the documented authoritative pixel list' is unusual and slightly muddles the operation, but the core purpose is clear.

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?

Usage is only implied: the singular 'one pixel' signals this is a by-id lookup rather than a listing, so an agent can infer it belongs after user has an id. But no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or prerequisite (e.g. 'use after audience_list_pixels') is stated.

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