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 mentions authentication errors (403) and rate limits (429) in the responses, which adds some behavioral context, but it doesn't cover key aspects like whether this is a read-only operation (implied by 'Get' but not explicit), permission requirements beyond authentication, or how errors are handled beyond HTTP codes. The response example with 'unknown_type' data is vague and unhelpful.

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 (status codes, content types, examples) that clutter the core purpose. The front-loaded sentence is clear, but the subsequent sections are redundant and not concise, failing to earn their place in a tool description.

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, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (implied by 'Has output schema: true'), the description is somewhat complete but inefficient. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but the verbose response details add little value and distract from more useful context, such as usage guidelines or behavioral traits.

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 description adds minimal value beyond the input schema. It repeats the parameter description for 'role_id' ('The unique identifier of the role.') verbatim from the schema, which has 100% coverage. No additional semantics, such as format examples or constraints, are provided.

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 role in the organization specified by the role's `role_id`.' This is a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('role'), but it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'ListRoles' or other 'Get' tools in the server, which would require a 5.

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 sibling tools like 'ListRoles' for browsing roles or 'GetUser' for related user information, nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions for usage.

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