MCP Datadog Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a 'Get' operation (implying read-only) and explains the calculation logic, but doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether it's a real-time vs cached analysis. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second explains the calculation basis. Both sentences add value without redundancy. It could potentially be more front-loaded with key details, but there's minimal 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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides basic purpose and calculation explanation. However, for a read operation with no annotations, it should ideally mention the return format (e.g., percentage, count, structured data) and any scope limitations. The description is adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral context.

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 zero parameters (schema description coverage is 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description focuses on what the tool returns rather than input requirements.

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 Serverless Resources' with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('CSM Coverage Analysis of Serverless Resources'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Serverless Resources' rather than other resource types like 'cloud_accounts' or 'hosts_and_containers' found in sibling tool names, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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. While it mentions the calculation basis ('based on the number of agents running...'), it doesn't specify prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when to choose this over similar tools like 'get_csm_onboarding_coverage_analysis_cloud_accounts' or 'get_csm_onboarding_coverage_analysis_hosts_and_containers'.

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