MCP Datadog Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Get all aggregated DNS traffic' implies a read operation but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what time range is covered, whether results are paginated, or what format the aggregation takes. The description is too minimal for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately sized for a simple tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 minimal description, this is incomplete for understanding the tool's behavior. The description doesn't explain what 'aggregated' means, what time period is covered, what the output looks like, or any limitations. For a tool that presumably returns analytics data, more context 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. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are no parameters to document. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema fully covers the empty input structure.

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 DNS traffic' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('aggregated DNS traffic'), but it's vague about what 'aggregated' means and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'aggregate_network_connections' or other analytics tools. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (like aggregate_network_connections, aggregate_logs_analytics, etc.), there's no indication of when DNS traffic aggregation is appropriate versus other types of network or analytics tools.

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