MCP Datadog Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does an excellent job describing pagination behavior, including how to handle the 'next_record_id' and even provides pseudo-code with rate limiting guidance (sleep 5 seconds). It also mentions the multi-region data availability constraint. However, it doesn't cover authentication requirements, error conditions, or response format details.

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 the pagination explanation and pseudo-code example are quite lengthy. While the pagination information is valuable, it could be more concise. The multi-region data availability note is appropriately brief. Overall, the description is somewhat verbose for a tool with no parameters.

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?

For a read-only tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides good behavioral context about pagination and data availability. However, it lacks information about what the attribution data actually contains, typical use cases, or what format/fields to expect in the response. Without an output schema, the description should ideally give more guidance about the return value structure.

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% description coverage, so the baseline would be 4 even with no parameter information. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are no parameters to document. The mention of 'start_month' in the pseudo-code is helpful context but not a formal parameter.

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 monthly usage attribution' which is a specific verb+resource combination. It also adds important scope information about multi-region data availability. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling usage tools like 'get_usage_hourly_attributions' or 'get_usage_billable_summaries'.

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. While it mentions pagination behavior, it doesn't explain the use case for monthly attribution data compared to hourly attribution or other usage tools in the sibling list. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical scenarios, or when-not-to-use guidance.

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