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

readOnlyHint=true already declares the safe-read nature. The description adds useful behavioral detail about pagination semantics and the underlying endpoint, but says nothing about auth, rate limits, or result ordering/totals — reasonable but not rich context beyond the annotation.

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?

Two tight sentences plus an endpoint, with the purpose front-loaded and the pagination rule stated immediately after the filter options. No filler.

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 read-only paged list with no output schema and fully documented params, the description covers what is returned, the optional filters, and pagination. It is nearly complete, missing only sibling-routing guidance and any ordering/count behavior.

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 each parameter (page, year, employee, monthly_pay) is fully documented in the schema, including the tredicesima/quattordicesima nuance. The description only restates the filterable dimensions (employee, year, month), so baseline 3 applies.

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+resource (list extra deductions applied to payslips) and even enumerates the returned fields (employee, payroll month, amount, kind), so an agent understands what it retrieves. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like jethr_list_payslips or jethr_list_payslip_extra_deduction_kinds, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

It implies usage through "optionally for one employee, year or month" and gives pagination guidance ("pass next_page as page"), but never states when to choose this tool over the related payslip or deduction-kind listers, nor any exclusions.

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