search_error_tracking_issues

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'search,' implying read-only but does not detail what constitutes an 'issue,' whether the operation is idempotent, requires any permissions, or has rate limits. Significant behavioral gaps remain.

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 a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose. It is front-loaded and wastes no words. However, it could slightly expand without becoming verbose, resulting in a 4 rather than a 5.

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 no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns (e.g., list of issues with structure). It does not. Also, with 6 parameters, the description fails to explain how parameters interact (e.g., does filter_query search issue titles or stack traces?). The tool is underspecified for effective use.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage, so each parameter has a description (e.g., 'Error tracking search query', 'Start time (ISO 8601)'). The description adds no further meaning beyond the schema, which already sufficiently defines parameter purposes. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 function with a specific verb ('Search'), resource ('Datadog error tracking issues'), and scope ('user-facing errors and exceptions'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like search-error-tracking-events by focusing on aggregated issues rather than raw events.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling search tools (e.g., search-error-tracking-events, search-logs), the description should clarify that this is for error tracking issues specifically and not for other error-related searches, but it does not provide any such direction.

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