export_organization_with_employees

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It reveals the data scope ('effective') and component types ('OM + PA') but omits crucial behavior such as output format, pagination, permissions, or exclusion of historical data. The undefined abbreviation 'OM + PA' further reduces clarity.

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, focused sentence with no filler, redundancies, or unnecessary context. It is efficiently front-loaded with the action and resource, making it exemplary for this tool's simplicity.

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 tool has no output schema, no annotations, and a description that fails to explain the return format or clarify how it differs from numerous sibling export tools. The lack of usage guidance and behavioral detail makes it incomplete for an agent navigating a complex tool ecosystem.

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 input schema fully documents the only parameter 'language' with a description and default value, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no parameter-level detail, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the action ('Export') and the specific resource ('effective organization units together with their employees'), with 'OM + PA' adding domain-specific depth beyond the tool name. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling export tools like export_organization_full or export_employees_full.

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 choose this tool over the many sibling export tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The term 'effective' hints at a scope constraint but does not convey the intended use case.

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