login_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does establish that this is a status read covering two facts. It does not say whether the call is purely local, whether it can trigger or fail during an auth flow, or what happens when the user is signed out — the key behavioral questions for an auth check.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the core fact (sign-in state) comes before the secondary one (plan), and the parenthetical enumerates possible plan values economically.

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 a zero-argument, annotation-free read tool this covers the essentials: what is checked and roughly what comes back. Since there is no output schema, a mention of the response shape when signed out (or any error behavior) would be needed for a 5.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The parenthetical example values ('plus', 'pro') usefully hint at the plan dimension of the result.

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 uses a specific verb ('Report') and a specific resource (sign-in state plus ChatGPT plan), which clearly separates it from an action tool such as start_device_login. It never names that sibling or explicitly contrast itself, so the discrimination is inferable 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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can gather that this checks auth state, but nothing says when to call it (e.g., before authenticated operations) or when to prefer start_device_login instead. No exclusions or preconditions are given.

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