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 an access restriction (parent-level organizations only), which is useful behavioral context. However, it does not cover other traits like read-only vs. destructive nature, rate limits, authentication needs, or output format, leaving gaps in behavioral disclosure for a tool with no annotations.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by a critical access restriction. Every sentence adds value without waste, making it highly efficient and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (a read operation with access restrictions), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the purpose and access but lacks details on return values, error handling, or behavioral traits like pagination, which are important for an agent to use it correctly in context.

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, so no parameter details are needed. The description does not add parameter semantics, but since there are no parameters, the baseline is 4 as it adequately addresses the lack of inputs without unnecessary information.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('billable usage across your account'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_usage_summaries' or 'get_usage_estimated_costs', which might offer similar usage data, so it lacks sibling differentiation for a perfect score.

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 clear context by specifying that the endpoint is 'only accessible for parent-level organizations,' which helps determine when to use it based on account type. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name specific alternatives among siblings, such as other usage-related tools, so it falls short of explicit alternatives guidance.

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