DYOE Org Credential ($0.10)

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the description only needs to add beyond that — and it does: it discloses the price ($0.10 USDC), the payment rail (Base via x402), and the fact that the output is a signed, independently verifiable credential. It does not note failure modes or rate limits, but for a single-call tool the pricing/payment disclosure is substantive.

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?

One compact paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then the input, then the price. Every element earns its place, though the '?domain=' fragment is slightly cryptic without context.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the returned fields (verdict, trust_score, domain_age) and discloses cost and payment method. It omits what happens on a failed trust check or the credential's format, but the essentials for calling it correctly are present.

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 coverage is 100% and the single domain parameter is fully documented in the schema with an example (stripe.com). The description's 'Input: ?domain=' adds only marginal value over the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 gives a specific verb and resource — issuing a signed, independently verifiable credential that a domain passed a trust check — and names the return fields (verdict, trust_score, domain_age). It does not, however, differentiate itself from nearby siblings such as dyoe_verify, dyoe_reputation, or dyoe_audit, which an agent might confuse with it.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the alternative tools (dyoe_verify, dyoe_reputation) that overlap in the trust-check space. The intended usage is only implied by the verb 'issue a credential'.

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