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. While 'provide failure data' implies a write/create operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits: no mention of authentication requirements, rate limits, whether this creates new records or updates existing ones, what happens on success/failure, or any side effects. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences that directly address purpose and use cases. The first sentence states the main purpose, and the second provides specific context. There's no wasted text, though it could be slightly more structured with clearer separation between purpose and guidelines.

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 that this is a mutation tool (implied by 'provide') with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter documentation needed, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'provide failure data' means operationally, what format the data should be in, what happens after submission, or any error conditions. For a tool that likely creates important metric 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, so the schema already fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't attempt to. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for a zero-parameter tool where the schema provides complete coverage.

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 tool's purpose: 'provide failure data for DORA metrics' with specific mention of the metrics it supports (Change Failure Rate, Time to Restore). It distinguishes from sibling tools like create_dora_deployments_v2 by focusing on failure data rather than deployment data. However, it doesn't explicitly state the action verb (e.g., 'create' or 'submit') which would make it a perfect 5.

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. It mentions what the tool is 'necessary for' but doesn't indicate when to use it versus other DORA-related tools like create_dora_deployments_v2 or get_dora_failure. There's no mention of prerequisites, timing considerations, or alternative approaches.

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