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

Annotations cover safety, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: a per-call token cost ('호출마다 토큰 1소진'), retry/recovery semantics for request_idempotency_key, and the warning not to conflate it with a provider-specific idempotency_key. What it does not disclose is what state the initialization creates or whether re-initializing overwrites an in-progress declaration.

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 correctly front-loaded, but the idempotency block runs four sentences with redundancy ('Reuse it... to recover that request' restated as 'Without it, calling again remains a new request') for a field already documented at 100% schema coverage. The trailing Korean cost note is valuable but orphaned at the end.

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?

For an init step in a multi-stage declaration workflow with no output schema, the description should say what the initialization produces and what the caller does next; neither is covered. Prerequisite auth and cost are well covered, so it is adequate but leaves the workflow shape incomplete.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real semantics beyond the schema for request_idempotency_key: generate before the first request, reuse only for lost-response recovery, new key for a new execution, and unavailable for anonymous calls. account_link_id is left entirely to the schema, which is adequate given its detailed field description.

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?

States a specific verb ('Initialize') and resource ('dependent qualification declaration'), which distinguishes it from the acquisition/change/loss init siblings by the 'dependent' qualifier. It never names those siblings or explicitly says it is not them, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than stated.

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?

Explicitly states the prerequisite: a prior nhis_edi__session__login call with the same account_link_id. That gives clear context for when the tool is callable, but there is no when-not guidance and no pointer to the follow-up step in the declaration flow (e.g., which save/submit tool consumes this initialization).

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