MCP Datadog Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get a signal's details' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify whether authentication is required, what format the details are returned in, whether there are rate limits, or if there are any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this minimal description leaves critical behavioral aspects undocumented.

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 extremely concise ('Get a signal's details.'), which could be seen as efficient, but it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. While it's front-loaded (the single sentence contains the entire description), it fails to provide necessary context, making this brevity detrimental rather than helpful.

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 apparent purpose (retrieving security monitoring signal details), the description is incomplete. With no annotations, no output schema, and a vague description, the agent lacks essential information about what the tool returns, how to identify which signal to retrieve, or any behavioral constraints. The description doesn't compensate for the missing structured information.

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% schema description coverage, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate since the schema fully covers the non-existent parameters, and the description doesn't contradict this (though it also doesn't explicitly state 'no parameters required').

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 a signal's details' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'get_security_monitoring_signal' without adding meaningful specificity. It doesn't clarify what type of signal (security monitoring signal) or what details are retrieved, nor does it distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_security_monitoring_signals' (plural) or 'search_security_monitoring_signals'.

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 absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, context requirements, or differentiation from similar sibling tools (like 'get_security_monitoring_signals' for multiple signals or 'search_security_monitoring_signals' for filtered searches). The agent receives no usage direction.

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