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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: fragments the calibrating curve cannot place are COUNTED in offScale and never drawn at the well, and migration uses 'the validated pydna model'. This discloses non-obvious output 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?

Front-loads the core action in the first sentence, then layers in input wiring and the offScale edge case. Four sentences with little waste, though the offScale/well detail is dense jargon that could be trimmed.

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 values need not be described, and the 12 parameters are fully covered in the schema. The description supplies purpose, input sources, and the offScale behavior; its only notable gap is the lack of explicit differentiation from sibling gel tools.

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%, so each parameter (ladder, stain, labels, dna_form, mobility_model, etc.) is already thoroughly documented in the schema. The description only weakly adds meaning by naming fragments/lengths as lane sources; the baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource — 'Run an agarose gel and photograph it' — and describes the output as a gel-doc image with ladder marks and lane names. It clarifies scope by noting it draws 'the same plate the gel panels draw', but it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the closely related run_gel_lane / run_gel_plate siblings.

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?

Gives input wiring guidance ('Wire `fragments` from a digest or `lengths` from an assembly into `lanes`'), which tells the agent what to feed it. However, there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over run_gel_lane, run_gel_plate, or other gel-rendering siblings, so the routing decision is left implicit.

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