Datadog MCP 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 important behavioral traits: the mapping data is updated monthly, access is restricted to parent-level organizations, and it includes error responses (400, 403, 429) with details. This covers key aspects like permissions and rate limits, though it could mention if it's a read-only operation or any side effects.

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 overly verbose and poorly structured. It front-loads useful information but then redundantly repeats parameter details already in the schema and includes extensive HTTP response examples that belong in an output schema. This adds unnecessary length without proportional value, reducing clarity and efficiency.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is mostly complete. It explains the purpose, usage context, and behavioral aspects. Since an output schema exists (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the detailed response examples in the description are redundant but don't severely detract from completeness. It could improve by clarifying read-only status.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, meaning the input schema already fully documents the two parameters (filter[month] and filter[view]) with descriptions, types, and defaults. The description repeats this parameter information verbatim in a 'Query Parameters' section, adding no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. This meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 specific action ('Get a mapping of billing dimensions to the corresponding keys') and resource ('for the supported usage metering public API endpoints'), with additional context about update cadence. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on billing dimension mappings, which is unique among the listed sibling tools that handle incidents, logs, security, costs, etc.

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 explicit context on when to use this tool: for retrieving billing dimension mappings, with a monthly update cadence, and specifies that it's only accessible to parent-level organizations. However, it does not mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among sibling tools, which prevents a perfect score.

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