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. It discloses important behavioral traits: data availability constraints (current/previous month only), latency (72-hour delay), and access restrictions (parent-level organizations only). It also mentions the alternative endpoint for historical data. However, it doesn't describe the return format, pagination, or error conditions.

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 efficiently structured with three sentences that each add distinct value: purpose statement, data availability constraints, and access restrictions. There's no redundancy or wasted words. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by important limitations.

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 no annotations, 0 parameters, and no output schema, the description provides good context about data constraints and access restrictions. However, for a cost estimation tool, it doesn't explain what the output contains (e.g., cost breakdowns, currency, time granularity) or potential error conditions. The absence of output schema means the description should ideally cover return values more explicitly.

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. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it appropriately focuses on behavioral context. The baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description meets this by providing useful operational context without attempting to document non-existent parameters.

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 estimated cost across multi-org and single root-org accounts.' It specifies the resource (estimated cost) and scope (multi-org/single root-org accounts). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling usage tools like 'get_usage_historical_costs' or 'get_usage_projected_costs' beyond mentioning the historical alternative.

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 usage context: it specifies that estimated cost data is only available for current/previous month with up to 72-hour delay, and explicitly names an alternative ('/historical_cost endpoint') for historical data. It also states access restrictions (parent-level organizations only). However, it doesn't provide guidance on when to use this versus other sibling usage tools like 'get_usage_projected_costs'.

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