ChatGPT plan status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower. The description adds real context beyond them: the check is scoped to this machine, applies to OpenAI models, and the response includes guidance on connecting or disconnecting. It does not specify the possible status values returned, which keeps it from a 5.

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 sentence with the core question (is the plan connected on this machine) front-loaded before the secondary benefit (how to connect or disconnect). No redundant restatement of the title or annotations.

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-parameter, read-only status tool with no output schema, the description covers what is checked and what the response offers. Only the enumeration of possible status states is missing, a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies no inputs are needed to run the check. Nothing about parameter behavior needs compensating for.

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 names a specific verb ("Show") and a precise resource (whether the ChatGPT plan is connected on this machine for OpenAI models), so the agent knows exactly what is being queried. It is distinguishable from get_auth_status (credentials) and connect_chatgpt_plan (the actual connect action) by the phrase "on this machine for OpenAI models," though it never explicitly names those siblings.

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 implied by "show whether... and how to connect or disconnect it" — an agent would call it before attempting connection. However, it never states when-not to use it or that connect_chatgpt_plan is the tool that actually performs the connection, which is the main routing risk given the sibling names.

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