datadog_monitor_search

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses read-only nature, auto-pagination behavior (limit 0 fetches up to 10000), response envelope structure (monitors + paging metadata), and output format (YAML). No contradictions.

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?

Three sentences, each adding distinct value: purpose, differentiation, and pagination/format details. No unnecessary words.

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 query syntax, limit semantics, output structure, and sibling comparison. No output schema but description adequately describes return format. Could mention any required permissions or rate limits, but overall complete for the tool's complexity.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions. The description adds extra nuance: '`limit` of 0 (or omitted) auto-paginates up to 10000', which clarifies default behavior beyond the schema's 'Maximum monitors to return'.

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 specifies 'Free-text / faceted search across Datadog monitors' with concrete query examples (e.g., `status:alert`). It clearly distinguishes the tool from `datadog_monitor_list` by contrasting filtering by status/facets vs. name/tags.

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?

Explicit guidance: 'Prefer this over `datadog_monitor_list` when filtering by status/facets rather than just name/tags'. Also notes response format difference (search envelope vs. plain array).

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