MCP Datadog Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes pagination behavior (cursor-based, how to fetch pages, termination condition) and mentions optional filtering, which are key operational traits. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling, preventing a perfect score.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by pagination details in clear, step-by-step instructions. Every sentence adds necessary information without redundancy, making it efficient and well-structured for an agent.

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's complexity (pagination, filtering) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description does a good job covering key aspects like purpose, pagination mechanics, and termination. However, it does not fully address potential complexities like error cases, response format, or integration with sibling tools, leaving some gaps in completeness.

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 the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining pagination parameters ('page[cursor]', 'page[size]') and filtering behavior, which compensates for the lack of structured parameters and provides practical usage semantics beyond the empty schema.

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: 'Returns all metrics that can be configured in the Metrics Summary page or with Metrics without Limits™ (matching additional filters if specified).' It specifies the verb ('Returns'), resource ('metrics'), and scope ('all metrics that can be configured...'), but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_metrics_v1' or 'get_metric' that might exist in the list, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance through pagination instructions and mentions 'additional filters if specified,' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_metrics_v1' or other metric-related siblings. It offers operational guidance (how to paginate) rather than contextual when-to-use advice.

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