MCP Datadog Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: the tool accepts a search query (with link to syntax), results are paginated (with link to pagination guide), and it's for listing/latest events. This covers search capability, pagination, and read-only nature (implied by 'list' and 'see'), though it doesn't explicitly mention rate limits or authentication needs.

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 efficiently structured in three sentences: first states the core functionality with links, second explains pagination behavior, third gives usage context. Each sentence adds distinct value with no redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 complexity (searchable, paginated list operation), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description provides good coverage. It explains the search capability, pagination, and purpose. However, it doesn't describe the return format or any error conditions, which would be helpful for completeness.

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% description coverage, so the schema fully documents that no parameters are required. The description adds value by explaining that search queries can be used (though not as parameters) and mentioning pagination behavior. For a zero-parameter tool, this provides useful context beyond the 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 tool's purpose: 'List endpoint returns CI Visibility test events that match a search query.' It specifies the resource (CI Visibility test events) and the action (list/search). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_ci_tests_events' or 'get_ci_pipelines_events', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 some usage context: 'Use this endpoint to see your latest test events.' This implies it's for viewing recent events but doesn't explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like 'search_ci_tests_events' (which appears to be a sibling tool). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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