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. It implies a read operation ('fetches'), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as required permissions, rate limits, whether it returns a list or single object, or error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 directly states the tool's action. It's appropriately sized without unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more specific (e.g., clarifying 'options') to improve clarity while maintaining brevity.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool is incomplete for effective use. The agent lacks details on what 'options' include, the return format, error handling, or how it differs from siblings. This is inadequate for a tool that likely returns configuration data, requiring more context for reliable invocation.

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 fully documents the lack of inputs. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no parameters to explain, aligning with the baseline for zero parameters.

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 states the tool 'fetches the Agentless scan options for an activated account', which provides a verb ('fetches') and resource ('Agentless scan options'), but it's vague about what 'options' entail (e.g., configuration settings, available scans). It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_agentless_scanning_accounts_aws' or 'get_agentless_scanning_ondemand_aws', leaving ambiguity in scope.

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 mentions 'for an activated account', but doesn't specify prerequisites, exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_agentless_scanning_accounts_aws', leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.

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