MCP Datadog Server

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

The description adds some behavioral context beyond what annotations provide (which are minimal technical schema annotations). It mentions the accessibility requirement and links to Restriction Policy documentation, which helps understand the tool's operational context. However, it doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, or what happens if the deployment fails.

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 efficiently structured in two sentences: the first states the core purpose, the second provides important prerequisite context. Every sentence adds value, and it's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool. A perfect score would require even more concise phrasing.

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 the tool's complexity (publishing apps with access control implications), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It mentions the Restriction Policy requirement but doesn't explain what the tool actually returns or what happens after publishing. With no output schema and minimal annotations, the description should ideally provide more complete operational context.

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?

With 0 parameters and 100% schema description coverage, the baseline is 4. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and instead focuses on the operational context and prerequisites for using the tool effectively.

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 clearly states the action ('Publish an app') and the resource ('for use by other users'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_app_builder_apps' or 'delete_app_builder_app_deployment', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 clear contextual guidance about when to use this tool: after creating an app and before it's accessible to users. It mentions the prerequisite of setting a Restriction Policy if one doesn't exist, which is helpful usage context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternative tools for related actions.

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