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. It usefully discloses that 'Results are paginated similarly to logs' with a link to documentation, which is critical behavioral information not captured elsewhere. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling, leaving some gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 appropriately brief with three sentences that each add value: stating the purpose, disclosing pagination behavior, and suggesting usage context. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. The link to external documentation is efficiently included but slightly disrupts flow.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameters, the description provides reasonable coverage of purpose and pagination behavior. However, for a search tool that presumably returns data, more information about response format, error conditions, or authentication would be helpful. The description is minimally complete but leaves important operational questions unanswered.

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 schema already documents that no parameters are required. The description doesn't need to add parameter information, but it does imply there's a 'search query' capability without specifying how it's constructed. This is adequate given the zero-parameter baseline.

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 states the tool 'returns events that match an events search query' which clarifies it's a search/list operation for events. However, it doesn't distinguish this from sibling tools like 'events_list', 'get_events', 'search_logs_events', or 'search_rum_events', leaving the specific scope ambiguous. The purpose is clear but lacks sibling 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 provides minimal guidance with 'Use this endpoint to build complex events filtering and search' but doesn't specify when to use this versus alternatives like 'events_list' or 'get_events'. No explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite information is provided, leaving the agent with insufficient context for tool selection.

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