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 adds valuable behavioral context by stating 'This list includes all users even if they are deactivated or unverified,' which clarifies the scope beyond a simple 'get users' operation. However, it doesn't mention other important behavioral aspects like pagination, rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

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 clear, efficient sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, and the second adds important qualifying information. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval 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 simple read operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what data is returned. However, without annotations and with no output schema, it lacks details about the response format, pagination, or any limitations. The description covers the 'what' but not the 'how' of the tool's behavior, which could be important for an agent to use it effectively.

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 (empty schema). The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters since none exist, and it adds semantic context about what data is returned (all users including deactivated/unverified). This goes beyond the schema and provides useful information for the agent.

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 the list of all users in the organization.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('users'), and adds useful scope information ('all users in the organization'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from potential sibling tools like 'get_user' or 'search_users' that might exist in the broader context, though none are listed among the provided siblings.

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 implies when to use this tool through the phrase 'all users in the organization,' suggesting it's for retrieving a complete list rather than filtered subsets. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives (e.g., search or filtered retrieval tools), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The sibling list includes many 'get_' tools but no obvious user-specific alternatives.

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