MCP Datadog Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions filtering parameters but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, pagination behavior, rate limits, or what the output format looks like. 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 two sentences with zero waste: the first states the core purpose, and the second adds filtering details. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, with no redundant information.

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's simplicity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but could be more complete. It covers the purpose and hints at usage but lacks behavioral details (e.g., read-only nature, output format). For a tool with no structured data, it meets minimum viability but leaves room for improvement.

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 (schema description coverage 100%), so there are no parameters to document. The description adds value by mentioning optional query parameters (`filter[keyword]` and `filter[me]`) for searching, which aren't in the schema. This provides useful semantic context beyond the empty 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 all teams' specifies the verb (get) and resource (teams). It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning filtering capabilities, though not by naming specific alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous but could be more specific about scope.

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 implies usage through the mention of filtering parameters ('Can be used to search for teams using...'), suggesting it's for retrieving teams with optional filtering. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus other team-related tools (e.g., 'get_team' for a single team) or provide exclusions. Guidance is present but limited.

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