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. While 'Get' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention any behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, time range defaults, or what format the hourly usage data is returned in. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to properly invoke this tool.

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 that directly states what the tool does without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool and is front-loaded with the core functionality.

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 that this is a data retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameters, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what format the hourly usage data is returned in, what time range is covered (current hour? last 24 hours?), whether authentication is required, or how this differs from other usage tools. For a tool in a complex monitoring/analytics system, more context is needed.

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 schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it appropriately doesn't mention any parameters. This meets the baseline expectation for a zero-parameter tool.

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 'Get hourly usage by product family' clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'hourly usage by product family', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_usage_billable_summaries' or 'get_usage_summaries', which appear to be related usage tools, leaving the scope somewhat vague.

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. With many sibling tools that appear to retrieve usage data (e.g., get_usage_billable_summaries, get_usage_summaries, get_usage_hourly_attributions), there's no indication of when this specific hourly usage by product family tool is appropriate versus other usage retrieval tools.

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