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 of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Get'), but doesn't provide any behavioral context about permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's a read-only operation, what format the response might be in, or any potential side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 gets straight to the point with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple tool with no parameters.

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 that there are no annotations, no output schema, and the description provides minimal behavioral context, this is incomplete. The tool appears to be a read operation (based on the 'get' prefix), but without annotations or description details about response format, authentication requirements, or usage constraints, an agent would lack important contextual 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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't. With no parameters to document, the baseline is appropriately high.

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 the default locations settings' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('default locations settings'), making the purpose understandable. However, it's somewhat vague about what 'default locations settings' specifically entails and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_locations' or 'get_synthetics_settings_on_demand_concurrency_caps'.

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. There are multiple synthetics-related 'get' tools in the sibling list (e.g., get_synthetics_locations, get_synthetics_settings_on_demand_concurrency_caps), but the description doesn't explain when this specific tool for 'default locations settings' is appropriate versus those other options.

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