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 for behavioral disclosure. 'Get team by ID' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what data is returned. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 at just three words ('Get team by ID'), with zero wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it immediately clear what the tool does without unnecessary elaboration.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a simple zero-parameter design, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a 'team' is in this context, what information is returned, or how errors are handled. While concise, it lacks necessary context for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it correctly implies the tool requires a team ID (though not explicitly stated as a parameter). This meets expectations for a zero-parameter tool.

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 'Get team by ID' clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('team'), making the basic purpose understandable. However, it lacks specificity about what 'team' means in this context and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_team' or 'teams_list', which appear to serve similar functions based on the sibling list.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list includes 'get_team' and 'teams_list', suggesting potential overlap, but the description doesn't explain when this specific tool is appropriate or what distinguishes it from those other team-related retrieval tools.

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