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. While 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, the description doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is idempotent, what happens on conflict, rate limits, or what the response looks like. For a creation 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 that gets straight to the point without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, though it could potentially be more informative given the lack of other documentation.

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 creation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and multiple similar sibling tools, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what an SLO object is, what fields it might contain, how it differs from related tools, or what the creation process entails. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without additional context.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already fully documents the parameter situation. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't attempt to describe non-existent parameters. The baseline for this situation is 4 since no parameter documentation is needed.

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 'Create a service level objective object' clearly states the verb ('Create') and resource ('service level objective object'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what exactly an SLO object entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'slos_create' or 'create_slo_corrections' that appear in the list.

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. With multiple sibling tools like 'slos_create', 'create_slo_corrections', and 'create_slo_bulk_deletes' that appear related, there's no indication of when this specific 'create_slos' tool is appropriate versus those other options.

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