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 retrieving 'full details' including 'attributes and relationships,' which hints at comprehensive output, but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant 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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without fluff. It's front-loaded with the main action. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly mentioning the lack of parameters or output format.

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 complexity (retrieving detailed issue data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'full details' includes, how to identify the 'specific issue,' or the response structure. For a tool that likely returns complex data, more context is needed.

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% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description doesn't add parameter details, which is appropriate. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as there's nothing to compensate for.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('full details for a specific error tracking issue'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'search_error_tracking_issues' by focusing on retrieving details for a specific issue rather than searching. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other get_* tools for error tracking.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an issue ID), when-not-to-use scenarios, or direct alternatives like 'search_error_tracking_issues' for listing issues. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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