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. It mentions 'post events' which implies a write operation, but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic operation.

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 sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. It's appropriately sized for a zero-parameter tool, though it could be slightly more structured by separating the three capabilities (tagging, priority, aggregation) more clearly.

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?

For a write operation with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what constitutes an 'event', what 'stream' refers to, what format events should be in, what happens after posting, or what the tool returns. The sibling tools include multiple event-related tools, making this lack of differentiation particularly problematic.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, though it does mention capabilities like tagging, priority setting, and aggregation which could be relevant to how events are structured.

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 states the tool 'allows you to post events to the stream' which provides a basic verb+resource combination. However, it's vague about what 'events' and 'stream' refer to in this context, and it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'events_post' or 'search_events' that might handle similar functionality.

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 mentions tagging, priority setting, and aggregation capabilities, which implies some usage context, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when-not-to-use scenarios, or how this differs from other event-related tools in the sibling list.

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