export_company_custom_fields

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action and output type without detailing side effects, return format, or any operational constraints. There is no mention whether the export is immediate or asynchronous, or what the response looks like.

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?

The description is a single sentence of eight words, immediately front-loading the verb and object. There is no redundant or extraneous information.

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?

Despite having a single optional parameter and no output schema, the description is too sparse to fully inform an agent. It does not explain the expected output format (e.g., file download vs JSON), the effect of the language parameter, or any necessary preconditions. Since there are no annotations to fill this gap, the tool description seems insufficient for robust invocation.

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?

The schema already describes the 'language' parameter as 'Language code' with a default of 'zh-tw' (100% coverage). The description does not add any additional context about how language affects the export, such as localization of field definitions, so it adheres to the baseline 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Export' and identifies the resource 'custom field definitions' with the scope 'configured by the tenant', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling employee/attendance export tools.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternative export tools included in the sibling list. It does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or when not to use it.

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