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 of behavioral disclosure. 'List downtimes' implies a read operation but reveals nothing about permissions required, rate limits, pagination, sorting, or what data is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description is inadequate to inform the agent about how the tool behaves or any constraints.

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 ('List downtimes'), which could be efficient if it were informative. However, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise—it lacks necessary detail about scope or behavior. While front-loaded, it fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'downtimes' are in this context, what the output format might be, or any operational constraints. For a list operation, even a basic one, more context is needed to guide effective use, especially with sibling tools like 'get_downtimes' present.

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 zero parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (though empty). With no parameters to document, the description cannot add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate here, as the description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter documentation gaps.

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 'List downtimes' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name 'downtimes_list'. It provides no additional specificity about what 'downtimes' refers to (e.g., system downtimes, maintenance windows) or what 'list' entails (e.g., retrieve all, with filters). While it matches the verb+resource pattern, it offers no meaningful distinction from what the name already implies.

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 zero guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are sibling tools like 'get_downtimes' and 'downtimes_cancel' that likely serve related but distinct purposes, but the description offers no comparison or context. It fails to indicate whether this is for read-only access, bulk retrieval, or any specific use case.

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