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. It states 'List', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if this is safe (non-destructive), requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or describes the return format (e.g., list of objects, pagination). The description is minimal and misses key behavioral details for a tool with no 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 a single sentence, 'List the GCP Usage Cost configs.', which is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core action and resource. However, it could be slightly more specific (e.g., 'List all GCP Usage Cost configurations' to avoid ambiguity), but overall it's appropriately concise.

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 'configs' are, the expected output format, or behavioral aspects like safety or permissions. For a 'get' tool in a cost management context, more context on the resource and usage would be helpful, especially with no structured fields to rely on.

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 (empty schema), so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline score of 4 is given as it compensates for the lack of parameters by not introducing unnecessary details.

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 the GCP Usage Cost configs' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('GCP Usage Cost configs'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'configs' entail (e.g., settings, definitions, or metadata) and doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling 'get' tools like 'get_cost_aws_cur_configs' or 'get_cost_azure_uc_configs', which have similar naming patterns.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., after creating configs), or sibling tools like 'create_cost_gcp_uc_configs' or 'update_cost_gcp_uc_configs' for related operations. Usage is implied only by the 'get' prefix, but explicit instructions are absent.

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