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 for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't confirm if it's safe, whether it requires specific permissions, if it has rate limits, or what the output format might be. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the implied read operation, which is insufficient 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 two concise sentences that directly state the tool's purpose and how the analysis is calculated. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids unnecessary details. However, the second sentence could be slightly more integrated, but overall it's efficient with zero waste.

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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose but lacks critical context. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., a report, metrics, or status), any prerequisites, or behavioral constraints. For a read operation with zero structured metadata, the description is minimally adequate but leaves significant gaps in understanding how to interpret results.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). With no parameters, the description doesn't need to add parameter semantics. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, as there's nothing to compensate for. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, which is correct given the context.

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: 'Get the CSM Coverage Analysis of your Hosts and Containers.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('CSM Coverage Analysis of Hosts and Containers'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_csm_onboarding_coverage_analysis_cloud_accounts' or 'get_csm_onboarding_coverage_analysis_serverless', 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains what the analysis is calculated on ('based on the number of agents running on your Hosts and Containers with CSM feature(s) enabled'), but offers no context about when this specific coverage analysis is needed compared to other CSM onboarding coverage tools or general resource queries. This leaves the agent without usage direction.

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