datadog_auth_status

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

Discloses that it returns only boolean presence flags, never secrets, and returns the site verbatim. Also states it does not call the validate endpoint, which is critical behavioral context. No annotations exist, so the description fully conveys safety and limitations.

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?

Every sentence adds unique value. The description is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then adds security guarantees, behavior comparison, and output format. No wasteful wording.

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?

Covers all relevant aspects: purpose, security, comparison to alternative, and output format (YAML). No output schema exists, but the description adequately explains the return structure. Context is complete for a simple status-check tool.

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?

No parameters exist; the schema confirms this. The description contributes no parameter info because none is needed. Baseline for 0-param tools is 4, and this is met.

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?

Clearly states the tool reports which Datadog credential scopes have credentials configured. Distinguishes from a sibling CLI tool by noting it does not call the validate endpoint, and specifies it only inspects local config.

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?

Explicitly states the tool is read-only and takes no parameters. Provides clear contrast with the CLI tool, indicating when to use this tool (for local config check) vs the CLI (for validation).

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