MCP Datadog Server

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

Annotations are minimal (Zod schema metadata) and do not provide behavioral hints like readOnlyHint or destructiveHint. The description adds some context by implying this is a configuration step ('save the configuration') and has a prerequisite, but it does not disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a mutating operation, what permissions are required, or any side effects. With no annotations covering behavior, the description partially compensates but leaves significant gaps.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose followed by usage guidance. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It is efficiently structured and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 has no parameters (schema coverage 100%) and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and usage prerequisites adequately. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects (e.g., mutation effects, error handling) and does not explain what 'services' refers to or the expected outcome. For a configuration tool with no structured behavioral annotations, the description is minimal but functional, meeting basic needs with clear gaps.

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 (since there are no parameters). The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate. It adds value by explaining the tool's purpose and usage context, so it exceeds the baseline of 3 for a zero-parameter tool.

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: 'Enable automatic log collection for a list of services.' It specifies the verb ('Enable'), resource ('automatic log collection'), and scope ('for a list of services'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_integration_aws_logs' or 'create_integration_aws_logs_services_asyncs', which limits the score to 4.

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 explicit usage guidance: 'This should be run after running `CreateAWSLambdaARN` to save the configuration.' It specifies a prerequisite (run 'CreateAWSLambdaARN' first) and implies a sequence of operations, which helps the agent understand when to use this tool. No alternatives are mentioned, but the guidance is clear and actionable.

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