MCP Datadog Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: the tool returns paginated results (via the link to documentation) and matches events based on a search query. It doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error conditions, but the pagination disclosure is valuable for a list operation.

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 sized with two sentences: the first states the purpose and key behavior (pagination), and the second provides usage guidance. The link to external documentation is concise and relevant. However, the first sentence could be slightly more front-loaded by stating the purpose more directly without the redundant 'List endpoint' phrasing.

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 complexity (a list operation with pagination), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose, pagination behavior, and usage context, but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no structured fields, it should do more to compensate, especially regarding output expectations.

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% description coverage, so the schema fully documents that no parameters are required. The description adds value by implying that events are filtered via a search query (though not parameterized in this tool), which helps the agent understand the tool's context. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List endpoint returns events that match an events search query.' It specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('events'), and scope ('match an events search query'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'search_events' or 'get_event' (singular), which might have different functionalities.

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 some usage guidance: 'Use this endpoint to see your latest events.' This implies the tool is for viewing recent events, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_events' or 'get_event'. The guidance is helpful but lacks explicit comparison with sibling tools.

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