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. It mentions 'get' (implying read-only) but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error handling, or what 'failure event' data includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 ('Use this API endpoint to get a failure event.'), which is concise but under-specified. It wastes no words but fails to provide essential context, making it inefficient in conveying value.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the tool is incomplete. The agent lacks clarity on what 'failure event' means, how to interpret results, or any operational constraints, making it inadequate for effective use.

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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add param info, but that's acceptable given the empty schema, warranting a baseline score of 4.

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 'Use this API endpoint to get a failure event' states a generic action ('get') and resource ('failure event'), but it's vague about what a 'failure event' entails and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_dora_deployment' or 'create_dora_failures_v2'. It partially restates the tool name ('get_dora_failure'), leaning toward tautology.

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. With many sibling tools (e.g., 'get_dora_deployment', 'create_dora_failures_v2'), the description offers no context, exclusions, or prerequisites, leaving the agent without direction.

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