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. While 'returns data' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, what format the data is returned in, whether there are rate limits, or if it returns all organizations or just the top-level one. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and doesn't waste space on redundant information. This is an excellent example of conciseness for a simple tool.

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 that this is a simple read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details about authentication requirements, return format, or how it differs from sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, the description should ideally provide more context about what 'data' is returned and in what structure.

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, and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the description correctly implies no parameters are needed for this operation.

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 data on your top-level organization.' It specifies the verb ('returns') and resource ('top-level organization'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_org' or 'get_user_orgs', which might provide similar organizational data but with different scopes or filters.

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 doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparison with sibling tools like 'get_org' (singular) or 'get_user_orgs'. Without this information, an agent might struggle to choose between similar organizational data retrieval tools.

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