Grafana: Auth Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: it reports whether write tools are registered, and it explains the silent-org-selection hazard of service account tokens. It also covers the unconfigured-server case ('says exactly what to set'), removing the main failure-mode ambiguity.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by the call-conditions. The opening sentence is a long packed enumeration, which costs some readability, but no clause is filler.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description enumerates the return surface in enough detail that an agent knows what it will get back. Combined with the misconfiguration and trust caveats, nothing material is missing for a zero-arg diagnostic tool.

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?

Zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate; baseline for an empty schema is 4. The description correctly implies the tool takes no input.

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 plus resource ('Report which Grafana and which organization this server reads, as whom') and enumerates the exact fields returned: URL, version, org id/name, login identity, effective role/permissions, write-tool registration. The diagnostic framing cleanly separates it from every sibling (query/search/list tools).

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?

Gives two concrete triggers: 'Call this first when a tool you expected is missing' and 'before trusting data from an instance you have not checked.' It also supplies the reason ('a service account token picks its org silently'), which is exactly the kind of condition-based routing an agent needs.

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