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. It implies a read operation ('Get') but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, returns paginated results, has rate limits, or what the output format looks like. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters and gets straight to the point without unnecessary elaboration.

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 has no parameters (simplifying input) but also no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'corrections' are, the return format, or any behavioral constraints. For a read operation with zero structured metadata, more context is needed to guide the agent effectively.

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 with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for this context.

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 corrections applied to an SLO' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('corrections applied to an SLO'), but it's somewhat vague about what 'corrections' entail and doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'get_slo_correction' or 'get_slo_corrections_v1'. It avoids tautology by specifying the resource beyond the tool name.

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 like 'get_slo_correction' or 'get_slo_corrections_v1' (both siblings). There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with no usage direction beyond the basic purpose.

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