MCP Datadog Server

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, etc.), so the description carries full burden. 'Get all aggregated connections' implies a read-only operation but doesn't disclose pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or what 'all' means in practice. It adds minimal context beyond the basic action.

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 description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('Get all aggregated connections'). For a simple tool with no parameters, this is appropriately concise.

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?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex aggregated data. The description doesn't explain what 'connections' are, what aggregation entails, or the format of results. For a tool in a monitoring/analytics context with many siblings, more detail is needed.

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 has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it correctly implies no inputs are required. This aligns perfectly with the schema, earning a baseline 4 for zero-parameter tools.

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 'Get all aggregated connections' states a verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregated connections'), but is vague about what 'connections' refers to (network connections? API connections?) and what 'aggregated' means. It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'aggregate_network_dns' or 'aggregate_logs_analytics'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention any context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With many sibling tools present, this lack of differentiation leaves the agent guessing about appropriate usage scenarios.

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