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 mentions returning an array of LogIndex objects but doesn't specify if this is a read-only operation, requires permissions, involves pagination, or has rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral traits undefined, though it doesn't contradict any annotations.

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 tool's purpose and output. It's efficient with minimal waste, though the first sentence ('The Index object describes...') is somewhat redundant with the tool name. Overall, it's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It explains what the tool returns but lacks details on behavioral context (e.g., safety, performance) or output format specifics. For a retrieval tool with no annotations, it should ideally mention read-only nature or organizational scope to be more complete.

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 parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, focusing on the tool's purpose. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, as it avoids redundancy and adds value by explaining the output.

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 states the tool 'returns an array of the LogIndex objects of your organization,' which clarifies it retrieves log index configurations. However, it's vague about the action ('returns' is generic) and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_logs_config_indexe' or 'get_logs_config_index_orders'—the name suggests a 'get' operation, but the description lacks specificity on scope or differentiation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., for configuration management), or exclusions, leaving the agent without usage cues. Sibling tools like 'create_logs_config_indexes' or 'update_logs_config_indexe' imply related operations, but no explicit comparison is made.

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