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

Annotations already flag a mutating, non-idempotent, destructive operation; the description adds real value beyond them by disclosing cost ($5/$20), a 1-year validity window, and automatic revocation on trust-score decline. What's missing is what happens on re-issue (does it charge again / replace the badge), which matters given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Tier economics and validity are front-loaded and compact; every sentence conveys useful information. The trailing Args block duplicates the input schema and could be dropped, but it costs little.

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?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the decision-relevant facts: price, thresholds, duration, and revocation behavior. Missing only edge-case behavior around re-issuance and prerequisites on the DID itself.

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 Args block merely repeats the schema's own wording for 'did' and 'tier' verbatim, adding no syntax, format, or enum constraints beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 applies since 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 and resource ('Issue a Verified by MolTrust badge for an agent'), which cleanly separates it from the sibling read tools mt_check_badge and mt_get_badge. The tier names also identify the concrete artifact being created.

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 eligibility thresholds (score 40+ for 'verified', 60+ for 'trusted') and pricing, which tells the agent when issuance is possible. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. use mt_check_badge before issuing) or stating exclusions such as whether a badge already exists.

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