services_get_computed_parameters

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond restating the HTTP route: it does not explain whether the response is cached, whether values reflect current state, or what 'computed' entails, which is the one thing annotations cannot supply.

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?

Two lines, front-loaded with the purpose, which is appropriately short for a simple getter. The raw HTTP path is redundant filler that occupies a third of the text without adding meaning for an agent.

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?

With no output schema, no parameter documentation, and an undefined core concept ('computed parameters'), the description leaves the agent unable to predict the response shape or confirm it has the right tool. For a read-only tool this is low-risk, but still materially incomplete.

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?

There is a single required parameter with 0% schema description coverage, and the description's only aid is the '/services/{id}/' path fragment implying the id is a service identifier. That is a hint, not documentation — no format, type detail, or source for the id is given.

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 pairs a specific verb and resource ('Get service computed parameters') and echoes the endpoint path, so the agent knows it is a read on a service-scoped resource. However, 'computed parameters' is never defined — the agent cannot tell what data these are or how they differ from related parameter tools like service_products_get_pm_parameters_schema_client. It names no sibling and draws no boundary.

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 call this versus alternatives such as service_products_get_pm_parameters_schema_client or services_get_by_id, nor any precondition or exclusion. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and the sibling list.

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