MCP Datadog Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states this is a creation operation, implying mutation, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or what the response contains. 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place by conveying essential information without redundancy.

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 with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what an 'on-call escalation policy' is, what data it might return, or any behavioral context needed for safe invocation. The simplicity of zero parameters doesn't compensate for the lack of mutation-related guidance.

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, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate since there's no gap to compensate for.

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 verb ('Create') and resource ('new on-call escalation policy'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_on_call_schedules' or other 'create_' tools, which would require specifying what makes escalation policies distinct from other on-call resources.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when escalation policies are needed versus other on-call configurations, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'update_on_call_escalation_policy' or 'delete_on_call_escalation_policy'.

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