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 discloses pagination behavior ('Results are paginated') with a link to documentation, which is valuable. However, it doesn't mention other key behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or response format. The description adds some context but leaves significant gaps for a read operation.

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 concise and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, the second adds pagination info, and the third provides usage context. Each sentence adds value, with no wasted words. The markdown link is efficient. A minor deduction for the slightly vague 'latest RUM events' phrase.

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 complexity (a read operation with pagination), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and pagination but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, error responses, and how the 'RUM search query' works. For a tool in a monitoring context, more behavioral context would be helpful, but it meets minimum viability.

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% description coverage, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description doesn't mention any parameters, which is appropriate here since there are none. It implies a 'RUM search query' but doesn't detail how this is specified (likely via query parameters not in the schema). Baseline is 4 for 0 parameters, but the slight ambiguity about query parameters prevents a perfect score.

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: 'List endpoint returns events that match a RUM search query.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('RUM events'), and scope ('that match a RUM search query'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_rum_events' or 'aggregate_rum_analytics', which prevents 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 minimal usage guidance: 'Use this endpoint to see your latest RUM events.' This gives a basic context but lacks explicit when-to-use vs. alternatives (e.g., search_rum_events for filtered searches, aggregate_rum_analytics for aggregated data). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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