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

The annotations already establish read-only, non-destructive, closed-world behavior. Beyond that, the description usefully explains that scoring is signal-derived and replaces instrument Phred values with peak-measured ones, though it does not discuss retention of original values or other behavioral details.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It states the operation and its result efficiently.

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 focused trace-quality recomputation tool with a full input schema, an output schema, and informative annotations, the description covers the essential operation and transformation. The main omission is explicit routing guidance among the many trace-related sibling 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%, and the parameters are documented in detail, including the calibration table and trace selection. The description adds little parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: re-score a Sanger trace's own base calls from the signal. It also states the key outcome, replacing instrument Phred values with peak-measured values, which clearly distinguishes it from base-calling or trace-adoption 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?

Usage is implied: use this when existing Sanger base calls need quality values measured from the signal rather than the instrument's Phred scores. However, the description does not explicitly say when to choose it over related tools such as call_bases_from_trace, adopt_trace_calls, or restore_trace_file_calls.

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