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 a read operation ('Get'), implying it is likely safe and non-destructive, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that interacts with a catalog system.

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, clear sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any fluff or redundancy. It is front-loaded and efficiently conveys the essential information, making it easy for an agent to parse 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 complexity of retrieving a service definition from a catalog, the description is insufficient. It lacks details on how the service definition is identified (e.g., by ID or name), what the output contains, and any system-specific behaviors. With no annotations and no output schema, the description does not provide enough context for reliable use.

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 parameter documentation is needed. The description does not add parameter information, which is appropriate, and the baseline score for 0 parameters is 4, as it avoids unnecessary detail while aligning with the schema's completeness.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('a single service definition from the Datadog Service Catalog'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_services_definitions' (plural) or 'create_services_definitions', leaving room for minor confusion about scope.

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 (e.g., how to identify the service definition to retrieve), contrast with sibling tools (e.g., 'get_services_definitions' for multiple definitions), or specify any contextual constraints, leaving the agent without usage direction.

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