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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false / destructiveHint=false, so the description carries most of the burden and does add real context: session prerequisite, a per-call token cost ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'), and detailed idempotency-key retry semantics. It still doesn't say what state initialization creates, whether it expires, or whether calling twice is harmful.

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 prerequisite is front-loaded correctly, but roughly two-thirds of the text is idempotency-key procedure that dwarfs the one-line statement of what the tool actually does. Useful content exists, but the balance is off and the trailing Korean token-cost note is tacked on rather than integrated.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never says what init returns or which sibling to call next (member lookup, exist check, save). For a step in a multi-call declaration workflow, that next-step information is what an agent most lacks.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and account_link_id is fully explained there. The description goes beyond the schema for request_idempotency_key — the schema only says 'see the tool description' — and the description defines generate-before-first-call, reuse-only-for-recovery, and new-key-for-new-execution, plus the warning not to confuse it with a provider idempotency_key.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: 'Initialize employee qualification loss declaration.' An agent can identify the domain, but it never distinguishes this from the closely-named siblings (los_exist_check, los_member_lookup, los_save, acqs_init, chg_init), so the boundary between 'init' and the rest of the LOS workflow is left to inference.

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 prerequisite is stated explicitly (requires a prior fourinsure__session__login with the same account_link_id), which is genuinely useful. However there is no guidance on when to run init versus los_exist_check or los_member_lookup, nor on what sequence follows init — the alternative-selection guidance is absent.

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