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 only states it retrieves details without specifying what details are returned, whether authentication is required, or any rate limits. It mentions 'from your organization' which implies some organizational context, but doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation or has other behavioral traits.

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 that directly states what the tool does without any fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with no parameters.

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 no parameters, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, how the monitor is identified (contradicting the 'specified' claim with no parameters), or provide any behavioral context. The agent would struggle to understand what this tool actually returns or how to use it effectively.

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, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose without unnecessary detail.

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 action ('Get details') and resource ('specified monitor from your organization'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_monitor_by_id' or 'get_monitors', which could cause confusion about which tool to use for specific retrieval scenarios.

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 like 'get_monitor_by_id', 'get_monitors', or 'search_monitors'. It mentions 'specified monitor' but doesn't explain how the monitor is specified (since there are no parameters), leaving the agent with no usage context.

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