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 that the tool returns detailed history data structured by source type, with examples for event and time-based SLOs, and notes different response formats. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description adds some behavioral context but is incomplete for a read operation with potential complexity.

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 well-structured, with four sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, explaining data structure, giving examples, and noting response format differences. It is front-loaded with the core function. However, the note about response formats could be integrated more smoothly, and there is minor redundancy in mentioning SLO types twice.

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 (SLO history with different types) and no annotations or output schema, the description provides basic context on data structure and format variations. However, it lacks details on authentication, error cases, or what 'specific SLO' means (e.g., how to identify it). Without an output schema, more guidance on return values would help, making it adequate but with clear gaps.

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, meaning no parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not mention any parameters, which is appropriate here. Since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4, as the description does not need to compensate for missing param info, but it could have clarified if parameters are implied (e.g., SLO identifier), so it's not a perfect 5.

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: 'Get a specific SLO's history, regardless of its SLO type.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('SLO's history'), making the function unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_slo' or 'search_slos', which might retrieve current SLO data or search across SLOs, so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 mentions that history data is structured by source type and notes different response formats, but this is about output behavior, not usage context. There is no mention of prerequisites, when to prefer this over other SLO-related tools, or any exclusions, 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.