MCP Datadog Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: default time range (past 3 hours), data retention (7 days), and pagination (max 1000 results). This covers scope, limitations, and output handling, which is valuable for agent decision-making. No contradictions exist, and it adds meaningful context beyond basic functionality.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, followed by critical behavioral details in three concise sentences. Each sentence adds essential information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 (a search tool with no annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers purpose, time constraints, retention, and pagination, which are crucial for usage. However, it lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of results) and error handling, leaving minor gaps in full contextual understanding.

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 are documented in the schema. The description compensates by implying search parameters ('by name, alias, or tag'), which adds semantic meaning about how to filter results. However, it does not specify if these are optional or required, leaving some ambiguity. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and this meets that with added value.

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: 'searching for hosts by name, alias, or tag.' It specifies the resource (hosts) and the search criteria, making it distinct from generic list operations. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_hosts_totals' or other search tools, which slightly reduces clarity.

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 implies usage by mentioning default inclusion of hosts 'within the past 3 hours' and retention of '7 days,' which suggests when data is available. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'search_resources' or 'get_hosts_totals') and does not state any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context partially inferred.

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