Evaluating the Efficiency of a Language?

Eastern Mono

ma-ma-hu-gima-ku-su-si-uka
he(SUB)/him(IO)/that(DO)(SPECULATIVE)/pass to/after/when/then/DISTAL DEIXIS
After the time that he is likely to give to him then

This is all one word. The problem with trying to determine efficacy through word count is that not all language operate on an Isolating (or one word = more or less one morepheme) system. Some languages are highly morphosemantic. Only one morpheme in the above word is actually a word when used alone, the rest are grammatical morphemes with grammatical function. I only used glosses of after when etc... for ease of translation understanding. For example the /su/ interpreted roughly as when is actually a relitivizer that allows this word to be placed as a relative clause in a sentence by establishing the order of verbs chronologically. It roughly says that when the verb it is attached to happens the other verb in the sentence will also happen.

Most languages that aren't 'world languages'/colonial languages are much richer in detail used to express simple things. Shoshoni (native american language) spoken over a large swath of the western United States has 18 grammatical deictic distances. Deixis = a languages manner of showing distance from speaker in space, time, or definiteness. Now which language is more effective, the more precise one (shoshoni) or the more compact one (english). More precision in language always means more morphemes, as there is only so much semantic and grammatical baggage one can pack into a single morpheme without making language so ambiguous that it won't have value.

I would have to say no if it is based on only that. At the very least, the evaluation would have to also include variability of signification among many listeners if such a thing could be evaluated. If I very efficiently word a sentence succinctly but communicate many different ideas to different individuals, how efficient can that language be?