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 but offers none. 'Create a notebook' implies a write/mutation operation, but there's no information about permissions required, whether this is idempotent, what happens on failure, rate limits, or what the response contains. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is completely inadequate.

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 extremely concise ('Create a notebook') but this borders on under-specification rather than effective brevity. While it's front-loaded with the core action, the single phrase fails to provide necessary context. It earns some credit for being brief but loses points for being insufficiently informative.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and minimal description, this is completely inadequate. The description doesn't explain what a 'notebook' is in this system, what gets created, what the expected outcome is, or any behavioral characteristics. Given the complexity implied by the extensive sibling tool list (which includes many specialized creation operations), this description fails to provide necessary context.

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 absence of parameters. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, and it doesn't contradict the schema. The baseline for this situation is 4, as the description appropriately doesn't attempt 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 'Create a notebook' is a tautology that restates the tool name without adding meaningful context. While it includes a verb ('Create') and resource ('notebook'), it lacks specificity about what a notebook is in this context or how this creation differs from other 'create_' tools in the sibling list. It doesn't distinguish itself from similar tools like 'create_notebooks' (plural) or other resource creation tools.

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. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate, or what distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'create_notebooks' (which appears to be a similar tool based on naming). The agent receives zero contextual usage information.

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