MCP Datadog Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses two important behavioral traits: (1) 'Results are paginated' with a link to pagination documentation, and (2) it's for 'complex RUM events filtering and search.' However, it doesn't mention rate limits, authentication requirements, or what constitutes a 'RUM search query' format. 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 extremely concise and well-structured: two sentences plus a documentation link. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second provides usage context, and the link offers additional technical details. Every sentence earns its place with zero wasted words.

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 complexity (search/filtering tool), no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is adequate but has gaps. It mentions pagination and complex filtering, but doesn't explain the expected query format, result structure, error conditions, or authentication needs. For a search tool with no structured metadata, more behavioral context would be helpful.

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. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, but it does imply filtering/search capabilities ('match a RUM search query') which aligns with the empty schema (likely query parameters handled elsewhere). Since there are 0 parameters, the baseline is 4, and the description adds appropriate context about the search functionality.

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: 'List endpoint returns RUM events that match a RUM search query.' It specifies the verb ('list'), resource ('RUM events'), and scope ('that match a RUM search query'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_rum_events' or 'aggregate_rum_analytics', which prevents a perfect score.

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 some usage context: 'Use this endpoint to build complex RUM events filtering and search.' This implies the tool is for complex filtering/search scenarios, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_rum_events' (likely simpler retrieval) or 'aggregate_rum_analytics' (aggregation-focused). No explicit 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.