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 but offers minimal behavioral insight. 'Get' implies a read operation, but there's no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'account' data is returned. The description doesn't contradict annotations (none exist), but fails to provide needed context for safe invocation.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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?

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is inadequate. The agent doesn't know what data is returned, in what format, or any behavioral constraints. While the tool is simple (0 parameters), the description should at least hint at the return value or scope given the lack of structured metadata.

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 (empty schema). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and appropriately doesn't mention any. A baseline of 4 is appropriate for zero-parameter tools where the schema fully documents the absence of inputs.

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 'Get a Fastly account' states the verb ('Get') and resource ('Fastly account'), making the basic purpose clear. However, it's vague about scope - does it retrieve a single account, all accounts, or something else? It doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_integrations_fastly_accounts' (plural) which suggests this might retrieve a single account, but this isn't explicitly stated.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or comparison to sibling tools like 'get_integrations_fastly_accounts' (which appears to retrieve multiple accounts). The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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