MCP Datadog Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but only states it 'gets a list' without disclosing behavioral traits. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what happens when no SLOs exist. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe invocation.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list operation and front-loads the core functionality ('Get a list').

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?

For a read operation with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'service level objective objects' contain, the return format, or any organizational scope constraints. While simple, it lacks sufficient context for an agent to understand what will be returned or how to interpret the results.

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 zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the empty input. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it correctly doesn't mention any parameters. Baseline is 4 for zero-parameter tools when schema coverage is complete.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('service level objective objects'), specifying it returns a list for the organization. It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_slo' (singular) and 'search_slos', but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'slos_list' which appears to be a similar list operation.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'search_slos' or 'slos_list'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, filtering capabilities, or any context for choosing this specific list operation over others available in the sibling tools.

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