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

Annotations already establish the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world safety profile, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context the annotations do not: what is discarded (instrument Phred values), what is preserved (the bases), and what the result reports (mean quality, lowest-scoring base, and the four trace parameters behind that call). It does not state whether any recomputed values are persisted, which leaves one gap.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does and immediately followed by the scope boundary and the reported result. No filler, no repetition of the title or schema content.

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, yet the description still frames the return values as a readable result set, and the schema fully documents the four inputs including the table-default (3730pop7). Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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 the schema already documents table, document, _files and _subject in detail (including why the calibration table matters). The description adds no syntax or selection detail for any input parameter; its mention of 'the four trace parameters' refers to output values, not callable arguments. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema carries the whole burden.

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 (re-score) and resource (a Sanger trace's own base calls from the signal) and immediately bounds the operation: instrument Phred values are replaced by ones measured from peaks, while the bases themselves are kept. That 'keeps the bases; only their quality changes' clause cleanly separates it from re-calling siblings such as call_bases_from_trace and adopt_trace_calls without needing their schemas.

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 makes the selecting condition clear: use this when a trace already has base calls and you want quality values recomputed from the signal rather than the sequence re-called. It does not explicitly name an alternative tool or an exclusion case, so it stops short of the 5 that would route the agent against named siblings.

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