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 and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: pagination mechanism with 'next_record_id', rate limiting advice (sleep 5 seconds), and data availability constraints (multi-region from March 1, 2023). It doesn't mention authentication requirements or error handling, but provides substantial operational guidance.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose but includes a lengthy pseudo code example that could be more concise. While the example is helpful, it occupies significant space. The structure is logical but could be more streamlined.

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 (pagination, rate limits) and lack of annotations/output schema, the description provides substantial context: pagination mechanism, rate limiting advice, and data availability. It doesn't explain the response format or attribution details, but covers key operational aspects adequately for a read-only tool.

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 baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining that 'start_month' is a parameter in the pseudo code example, though it's not formally documented in the schema. This provides practical context for usage.

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 hourly usage attribution' with the verb 'Get' and resource 'hourly usage attribution'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the granularity (hourly) and type (attribution), though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools like 'get_usage_monthly_attributions' or 'get_usage_hourly_usages'.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives is provided. The description mentions multi-region data availability starting March 1, 2023, but doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or comparisons with sibling tools like 'get_usage_monthly_attributions' or 'get_usage_hourly_usages'.

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