MCP Datadog Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states it 'gets metadata' without specifying whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, if there are rate limits, or what the output format might be. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's apparent simplicity, though this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, this is incomplete for effective use. The tool likely retrieves metadata for a specific metric, but without details on what 'metadata' includes, how to identify the metric, or behavioral traits, the agent cannot reliably invoke it. The high schema coverage for 0 parameters doesn't compensate for these gaps.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. However, it doesn't clarify if the tool requires implicit inputs (like a metric identifier in the URL), so it's not fully compensatory but earns a baseline 4 for zero 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 'Get metadata about a specific metric' restates the tool name 'get_metric' without adding specificity. It uses the verb 'get' but doesn't clarify what 'metadata' entails or how this differs from other metric-related tools like 'get_metrics_v1', 'get_metric_tags', or 'get_metric_volumes' among the siblings. This is a tautological description that provides minimal value beyond the name.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_metrics_v1', 'get_metric_tags', and 'estimate_metric', there's no indication of whether this tool is for single metric retrieval, what 'metadata' includes, or any prerequisites. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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