Datadog MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool takes no arguments and includes HTTP response codes (200, 403, 429) with examples, which adds some context on success and error conditions. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or what 'order of your archives' entails operationally, leaving significant gaps for a tool with potential security or usage implications.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and input note, but it includes extensive, verbose HTTP response details that may be unnecessary if an output schema exists (context signals indicate 'Has output schema: true'). This adds bulk without proportional value, reducing efficiency. However, the initial sentences are clear, so it's not overly bloated.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema, the description provides basic purpose and input info, which is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and sibling tools present, it lacks guidance on usage context and behavioral details (e.g., auth needs, data format), making it incomplete for optimal agent understanding despite the structured data support.

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 the schema fully documents the lack of inputs. The description reinforces this by stating 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which adds clarity but is redundant. Since there are no parameters to explain, the description adequately addresses this dimension without needing to compensate for gaps.

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: 'Get the current order of your archives.' This specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('order of your archives'), making it understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'GetLogsArchive' or 'ListLogsArchives', which likely retrieve different archive-related data, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 usage guidance: it notes 'This endpoint takes no JSON arguments,' which implies when to use it based on input requirements. However, it offers no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'GetLogsArchive' or 'ListLogsArchives'), nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions, leaving usage context vague.

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