I think you'd do well to take a college communications class. You'd get exposed to diagrams like this that examine and explain what communication is, and how language works to facilitate communication:

I think Ferdinand de Saussure’s intuition is closer to the truth than the idea that words have a 1:1 congruence to objective reality, or that they’re truly defined by their dictionary “definitions”. Rather, all the words in a language mutually define each other via their correlations in usage, and the resulting network of correlations forms a unified structure we then match to the similar structure we recognize in reality.

Because this structure is entirely contained within the usage patterns of the language itself, it doesn’t need to be communicated via any extra-linguistic channel.

dunno what you mean

You might be interested in reading about the knowledge argument aka Mary's Room, a thought experiment about knowledge. See also: qualia

Basically this: Mary is a brilliant scientist who spends all day every day in her room. She has no color of any kind in her room. But, being a brilliant scientist, she has learned everything there is to know about color. She knows about frequencies and wavelengths, she knows all about the eye and the brain and how they interpret light to form the sensation of color. She has studied art from all of human history and knows how artists use color and understand all of their cultural associations.

But she has never seen red herself. So in all of her learning, does she really understand what red is? She's missing the qualia, the subjective experience of a thing. No amount of language and communication can bridge that gap.

Language is inherently imprecise, I would say actually that it depends on that imprecision as 1:1 communication of an idea is impossible. It certainly couldn't be any more precise than our already incorrect experience of reality. Sometimes I think its pretty incredible that our emotional and physical experiences are similar enough at all for communication to be possible.

It's shit, but it's the best we've got.

Good enough, apparently.

All forms of communication have advantages and disadvantages. I'm old enough to still have written actual letters to lovers and friends. There's something to be said for collecting your thoughts - sometimes for days - and putting them on paper in concentrated form.

All in all I think the dangers of misunderstanding each other are just as big as with any other form.
Unless you had some other type of effectiveness in mind.

Chomsky was big on the idea that we innately have a certain bunch of ideas wired into our minds at birth, and then we learn words that are connected with some of those ideas, and other words are related to the initial words. One of his examples iirc was the word "climb" being connected to an innate concept. We can imagine all kinds of species possessing this concept even without having language. Humans later evolved a language faculty that allowed associating words with the concept and the sensations of climbing. IDK how current that idea is among linguists nowadays.

I would say LLM's trained on internet text manage to communicate verbally to some extent, despite not having such biological priors. Their style ranges from annoying to sometimes hilariously wrong, but plenty of humans are the same way.