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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions HTTP response codes (200, 400, 403, 404, 429) with error details, which adds some context about potential failures and rate limits. However, it doesn't clarify if this is a read-only operation, what permissions are required, or how the data is structured beyond the vague example (e.g., 'unknown_type'), leaving significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 includes extensive HTTP response details that could be inferred from annotations or an output schema, cluttering the core purpose. The front-loaded sentence is clear, but the subsequent sections (e.g., repeated error examples) add unnecessary bulk without enhancing usability for an AI agent, making it inefficient.

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 low complexity (1 parameter) and high schema coverage (100%), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It lacks usage guidelines and behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, permissions). The presence of an output schema (implied by response details) reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still misses key contextual elements 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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'custom_destination_id' fully documented in the schema as 'The ID of the custom destination.' The description repeats this in the 'Path Parameters' section but adds no additional meaning, syntax, or format details. Given the high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate beyond what the schema already provides.

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 a specific custom destination in your organization.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('custom destination'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListLogsCustomDestinations' (which appears to list multiple destinations), leaving some ambiguity about when to use one versus the other.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a specific custom_destination_id), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'ListLogsCustomDestinations' for listing multiple destinations. This lack of context makes it harder for an agent to choose correctly.

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