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. It states this is a 'Get' operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'full result' entails (e.g., structured data, pagination). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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: 'Get a specific full result from a given Synthetic browser test.' It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, with no wasted words or redundant information. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 (a tool for retrieving synthetic test results), lack of annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain how to identify the 'given' test, what 'full result' includes, or any behavioral aspects like error handling. For a tool in a domain with many siblings, more context is needed to use it 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, so the schema fully documents the lack of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it implies a 'given Synthetic browser test' is required, which could be confusing since no parameters are defined. However, with 0 parameters, the baseline is 4 as the description doesn't contradict the schema.

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 full result from a given Synthetic browser test.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('full result'), and scope ('from a given Synthetic browser test'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_tests_browser_results_v1_2' or 'get_synthetics_test_results_v1', which appear to serve similar purposes.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a test ID), exclusions, or compare it to sibling tools like 'get_synthetics_tests_browser' or 'get_synthetics_test_results_v1'. The agent must infer usage from the name and context alone.

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