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 discloses behavioral traits: it's a write operation (implied by 'Create'), requires specific account features and support enablement, and mentions response details (org.public_id, api_key.key, application_key.hash). However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by prerequisites and response details in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (a write operation with no parameters but significant prerequisites), the description is mostly complete: it covers purpose, usage conditions, and response details. However, it lacks output schema and does not fully address behavioral aspects like error cases or permissions, though it compensates with response information.

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% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description does not discuss parameters, which is appropriate, but it adds value by explaining the response structure, compensating for the lack of output schema.

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 action ('Create a child organization') and specifies the resource, distinguishing it from siblings like 'create_org_downgrade' or 'update_org'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other 'create' tools (e.g., 'create_users'), though the resource type is distinct.

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?

It explicitly states when to use this tool: it requires the multi-organization account feature and must be enabled by contacting support. This provides clear prerequisites and context for usage, though it does not mention alternatives since siblings include no direct alternatives for creating child organizations.

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