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. It states the tool gets all notebooks and can search, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or any error conditions. This is a significant gap for a tool with zero annotation coverage, making it inadequate for safe and effective use.

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 that are front-loaded and waste-free. The first sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds search functionality without redundancy. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to understand quickly.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on return values (e.g., format, structure), behavioral constraints, and error handling. For a tool that likely returns a list of notebooks, this omission makes it insufficient for an agent to use correctly without additional context or assumptions.

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 parameters are documented in the schema. The description mentions a 'query' parameter for searching notebooks by name or author handle, which adds semantic value beyond the empty schema. However, it does not specify the query format or any other optional parameters, but with 0 params, the baseline is high, and it provides useful context.

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 all notebooks' specifies the verb (get) and resource (notebooks). It also adds that it can search by query in name or author handle, which clarifies functionality beyond a simple list. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_notebook' (singular) or 'notebooks_list', which might have similar purposes, so it lacks full sibling 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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It mentions search capability but does not specify when to prefer this over other search or list tools in the sibling set (e.g., 'notebooks_list' or 'search_*' tools). There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual usage, leaving the agent without clear direction.

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