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 discloses key behavioral traits: the tool returns a list of issues matching a search query, uses event search syntax, and has a limit of 100 issues per request. However, it doesn't mention pagination, sorting, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what happens when the limit is exceeded. The description doesn't contradict any annotations (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 efficiently structured in three sentences: it states the purpose, specifies the search syntax, and notes the result limit. Every sentence adds essential information without redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core function and appropriately sized 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?

Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic purpose, syntax hint, and result limit, but lacks details on output format (e.g., structure of returned issues), error handling, or authentication. For a search tool, more behavioral context would be helpful, though the low complexity mitigates some gaps.

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% schema description coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description adds value by explaining that searches use 'event search syntax' and are limited to 100 results, which provides context beyond the empty schema. However, it doesn't detail the syntax or query format, leaving some ambiguity.

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: 'Search issues endpoint allows you to programmatically search for issues within your organization.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('issues'), and scope ('within your organization'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling search tools like 'search_events' or 'search_logs_events', which would require more specific differentiation.

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 usage context by mentioning 'search for issues within your organization' and 'following the event search syntax,' suggesting it's for error tracking issues. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'get_error_tracking_issue' for a single issue or other search tools for different data types). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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