export_organization_full

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds only the qualifier 'effective' but does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, the output format, pagination behavior, or any other side effects. This is insufficient for an export tool operating on master data.

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 one sentence with no fluff. 'Export effective organization master data with all fields' packs the key points; even 'OM endpoint' is a concise technical aside. Every word contributes to the core purpose.

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?

The description is too sparse given the complex sibling landscape. It fails to explain what 'organization master data' includes, how this differs from export_organization_with_employees or get_organization_snapshot_as_of, and what the 'OM endpoint' means. It also doesn't clarify the role of the language parameter.

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 single parameter 'language' is fully described in the schema ('Language code'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 the action ('Export') and the resource ('effective organization master data with all fields'). It distinguishes itself somewhat by noting 'effective' data and 'all fields', but it doesn't explicitly call out sibling tools like export_organization_with_employees or get_organization_tree, leaving some ambiguity.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many related sibling tools. The description does not mention any alternatives, exclusions, or specific scenarios where this export is preferred. The 'OM endpoint' hint is technical and not meaningful for usage decisions.

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