export_pa_options

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior, but it only says 'Export reference code tables'. It does not specify output format, whether it triggers a download, what tables are included, or any side effects. Minimal transparency beyond the action itself.

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, direct sentence that is easy to parse and front-loaded with the key action and target. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it omits details that might be expected in a fuller description.

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?

Given the tool has no annotations, no output schema, and only one optional parameter, the description is thin. It leaves unanswered what 'reference code tables' actually contain, what the output looks like, and how the language choice impacts results, making the description insufficient for fully informed 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 input schema has one parameter, 'language', with a description ('Language code') and default 'zh-tw', providing 100% schema coverage. The description adds no additional meaning about how the language parameter affects the export, so it does not exceed the baseline 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 a specific verb ('Export') and resource ('reference code tables') used by the People+ (PA) module. It distinguishes itself from sibling export tools by scoping to PA reference tables, though 'reference code tables' remains somewhat vague about the actual data content.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The many sibling export tools could overlap in purpose, but the description does not mention any exclusions or preferred contexts, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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