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: it specifies that the tool returns the Index object passed in the request body when successful. However, annotations are minimal (just schema structure), so the description carries more burden but doesn't cover important aspects like permissions needed, rate limits, or what happens on failure. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 extremely concise with two clear sentences: one stating the action and one describing the return behavior. Every word earns its place, and the information is front-loaded with the primary purpose first. No wasted words or redundant information.

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 this is a creation tool with no annotations covering behavioral aspects and no output schema, the description is somewhat incomplete. It covers the basic action and return value but lacks information about required permissions, error conditions, or how this tool relates to other logs configuration tools. For a mutation operation, more context would be helpful.

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 there are none, and the schema already fully documents the empty object structure. No additional parameter information is needed or provided.

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: 'Creates a new index' specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on logs configuration indexes, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other create_* tools. The addition of return value information is helpful but doesn't affect the core purpose clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, when this operation is appropriate, or what happens if an index already exists. Among many sibling tools (including other logs config tools), there's no differentiation or usage context provided.

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