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. The description 'Get an on-call escalation policy' implies a read-only operation but does not specify whether it requires authentication, returns a single policy or a list, includes pagination, or handles errors. It lacks critical behavioral details needed for safe and effective use, such as rate limits or response format.

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: 'Get an on-call escalation policy'. It is front-loaded and wastes no words, making it highly concise. Every word contributes to the core purpose without unnecessary elaboration, adhering to best practices for brevity.

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 (a read operation with no parameters) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieval method, return format, or error handling), leaving significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves and what results to expect. This inadequacy hinders the agent's ability to use the tool correctly.

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 does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate since none exist. However, it does not clarify if parameters are implied (e.g., an ID to fetch a specific policy) or if it retrieves all policies by default, leaving a minor gap in semantic clarity.

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 an on-call escalation policy' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'on-call escalation policy', providing a basic understanding of the tool's function. However, it lacks specificity about what 'Get' entails (e.g., retrieve a single policy, list all policies, or fetch by ID) and does not distinguish it from sibling tools like 'get_on_call_schedule' or 'create_on_call_escalation_policies', making it vague in context.

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 does not mention prerequisites, context for usage, or differentiate from sibling tools such as 'create_on_call_escalation_policies' or 'update_on_call_escalation_policy'. This absence of usage instructions leaves the agent without direction on appropriate invocation scenarios.

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