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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the non-mutating nature is fully covered. The description's 'without applying it' adds mild confirming context but says nothing about what the preview returns, whether it has side effects, or any rate/auth constraints.

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?

A single short sentence with no waste, and the non-mutating constraint is front-loaded. Appropriately sized for the information it chooses to convey.

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 6-parameter tool with sparse schema descriptions and no output schema, the definition leaves the agent without guidance on the date/preset parameters or what a 'preview' actually yields. It is too thin to call the tool 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 only 17% (just user_intent), and the description contributes zero parameter meaning for the 6 params, including required brand_id/finding_id and the range_preset/start_date/end_date group. With low coverage the description should compensate but does not.

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 ('Preview') and resource ('crawler access fix') with a scope qualifier ('without applying it'). An agent can distinguish it from read siblings like get_crawler_access, though the description never names an alternative explicitly.

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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative (e.g., an apply/commit counterpart). The phrase 'without applying it' implies a non-mutating preview but doesn't tell the agent when to choose this over get_crawler_access or get_crawler_detail.

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