export_employees_full

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

With no annotations, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain that this is a read-only operation, what 'effective' means (e.g., as-of-date semantics), how large the response may be, whether pagination is involved, or any performance implications. It only vaguely mentions filters.

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 brief and to the point, using two sentences with no redundant filler. It front-loads the main purpose and mentions filters. However, the term 'PA' is unexplained and could cause confusion, slightly reducing clarity.

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 tool with 8 optional parameters, no required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is underspecified. It does not explain return format, whether results are paginated, what 'effective' means, or how this tool relates to other export tools. The presence of many similar siblings increases the need for more contextual information.

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 descriptions cover all 8 parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: 'every PA field' implies the export scope but does not clarify parameter formats or usage. Since parameter descriptions are already detailed, the description does not need to compensate.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Export') and resource ('effective employee data') with a scope ('every PA field'). While 'PA' is not explained, it distinguishes the tool's comprehensive nature from simpler export tools like export_employees. However, it does not explicitly differentiate it from all siblings.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as export_employees, list_active_employees, or export_organization_with_employees. 'Supports many optional filters' hints at flexibility but provides no exclusions or decision criteria.

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