DYOE Policy Authorization ($0.02)

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true), the description discloses the return artifact (a signed decision receipt), the escalation rule for over-policy actions, and the cost/payment mechanism ($0.02 USDC on Base via x402). It does not state exactly what state is written or whether the decision is auditable, so it stops short of full disclosure.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and its escalation behavior, followed by the input hint and price. The query-string-style input listing is mildly redundant with the schema but costs little space.

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 no output schema, the description correctly compensates by stating the return value (signed decision receipt). It also covers pricing and escalation, which an agent calling a paid, open-world authorization service needs. Missing only details on side effects/permissions, which are minor given the annotations.

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 action, amount, and counterparty, including the required flag. The description's 'Input: ?action=&counterparty=&amount= (counterparty required)' merely restates the schema and adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond it.

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 names a specific verb pair (approve or deny), the resource (an agent action), and the governing context (a human-set policy), plus the escalation outcome. It is clearly distinguished functionally from generic siblings like dyoe_verify or dyoe_review, though it never names an alternative tool explicitly.

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: you call this when an agent action needs instant authorization against a policy, and anything over the policy line escalates rather than being handled here. There is no explicit when-not guidance or named alternative, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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