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 of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves 'current order,' implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, rate limits, or what the output format looks like (e.g., list, JSON structure). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a useful technical note about parameters. Every sentence earns its place with no wasted words, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool does and that it takes no arguments, but it lacks details on output format, error handling, or usage context, which could be important for an agent to invoke it correctly in a broader workflow.

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, and schema description coverage is 100% (empty schema). The description explicitly states 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which adds value by confirming no inputs are needed, aligning with the schema. This compensates well for the lack of parameters.

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: 'Get the current order of your log indexes.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and identifies the resource ('log indexes'), but it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_indexes' or 'update_logs_config_index_orders', which could cause confusion about when to use this specific tool.

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 mentions 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which is a technical detail about parameters but doesn't help the agent decide between this tool and other log-related tools in the sibling list, such as 'get_logs_config_indexes' or 'update_logs_config_index_orders'.

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