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, 403, 404, 429) and error formats, which adds some context beyond the basic 'get' operation. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, rate limits, side effects, or what the 'data' field contains in the success response, leaving significant gaps for a tool with potential security 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 but becomes verbose with detailed HTTP response documentation that might be redundant if an output schema exists. The structure includes markdown formatting, but some sections (like repeated error examples) could be more streamlined. It's not excessively long but includes elements that may not 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 context signals—1 parameter with 100% schema coverage and an output schema—the description is moderately complete. It covers the basic operation and error handling, but as a security-related tool with no annotations, it should provide more behavioral context (e.g., permissions, data sensitivity). The output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still lacks depth for full agent guidance.

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 repeats the parameter information from the input schema ('suppression_id' is required and described as 'The ID of the suppression rule'), which has 100% schema description coverage. It adds no additional meaning, such as format examples, ID sourcing, or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but doesn't detract either.

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 details of a specific suppression rule.' It uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('suppression rule'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ListSecurityMonitoringSuppressions' or 'GetSecurityMonitoringRule', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 'ListSecurityMonitoringSuppressions' for listing all rules or 'GetSecurityMonitoringRule' for related rules, nor does it specify prerequisites or appropriate contexts for retrieving a specific suppression's details.

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