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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. Beyond that, the description adds real behavioral context: the tool refuses for non-ABIF formats rather than silently returning processed channels, and the baseline-diagnostic semantics disclose what the output means. It doesn't mention error payloads or rate limits, so not a 5.

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 purpose, which is good, but the two sentences are dense and enumerate return fields at length. Much of that enumeration is redundant given an output schema exists, so some text does not earn its place.

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?

Given the ABIF-only constraint, an output schema, and full annotation coverage, the description gives an agent everything needed: what the signal is, why to read it, and the format refusal. It is nearly complete; only explicit parameter/file-selection guidance 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 _files, _subject, and document fully. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., how to specify the trace file, name vs project id). Baseline 3 applies when the schema carries the parameter 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+resource: it extracts the unprocessed raw signal of a Sanger trace, enumerating what that comprises (scan count, per-channel baselines, peak raw value, dye-front scans discarded). It clearly separates itself from processed-trace siblings like draw_trace/trim_trace by emphasizing 'UNPROCESSED'.

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?

Explicitly names the diagnostic situation: use it to separate an instrument problem from an analysis problem, and even describes the inference (clean raw channels but wrong analyzed trace = mis-analyzed). It also states a hard exclusion — ABIF only, SCF and ZTR store no raw channels — and says it refuses rather than substituting processed data.

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