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. 'Search cases' implies a read-only operation but does not specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what the output format might be. This lack of detail makes it inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.

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 ('Search cases.'), which could be seen as efficient. However, it is under-specified rather than appropriately sized, as it fails to provide necessary context for a tool with no annotations or output schema. While not verbose, it lacks the substance needed for effective tool selection.

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 implied by the tool name (likely involving data retrieval) and the absence of annotations, output schema, and detailed description, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what 'cases' are, how the search works, or what is returned, leaving significant gaps for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

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, meaning no parameters need documentation. The description does not add parameter information, which is acceptable in this context. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the schema fully handles the parameter semantics, and the description does not need to compensate.

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 'Search cases' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_cases' without adding meaningful specificity. While it indicates the action (search) and resource (cases), it lacks detail about what 'cases' are or how the search operates, making it vague compared to what a clear purpose statement should provide.

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. Given the extensive list of sibling tools (including other search tools like search_events, search_logs_events, etc.), there is no indication of context, prerequisites, or differentiation from similar tools, leaving the agent with no usage direction.

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