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. 'Upload' implies a write/mutation operation, but the description doesn't disclose whether this overwrites existing data, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in behavioral context.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 that this is a mutation tool (implied by 'upload') with no annotations, no output schema, and 0 parameters, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what a 'Custom Costs file' is, how to provide it, what the upload does (e.g., replaces existing data), or what to expect in return. For a tool that likely modifies cost data, more context is needed.

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% coverage, so no parameters need documentation. The description mentions 'a Custom Costs file', which hints at an implied file input, but since the schema explicitly has no properties, this doesn't add value beyond the structured data. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4.

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 'Upload a Custom Costs file' clearly states the action (upload) and the resource (Custom Costs file), making the tool's purpose understandable. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'create_cost_custom_cost' or 'delete_cost_custom_cost', but the verb 'upload' implies a file operation rather than creation/deletion of a configuration.

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 description doesn't mention prerequisites, file format requirements, or when this upload might be needed versus other cost-related tools like 'update_cost_budgets' or 'create_cost_aws_cur_configs'.

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