Promote endpoints to direct HTTP

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds value by explaining why mutations are excluded (charging concerns) and the performance benefits (faster, parallelizable). No contradiction with annotations.

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 two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence states the main action and benefit, and the second adds a critical constraint. It is front-loaded and efficient.

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?

For a simple tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description is fairly complete. It explains the purpose, the input source, and the behavioral constraint. However, it could briefly mention the return value or success criteria, though not critical.

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 input schema has 100% coverage with a clear description for the only parameter 'procedures' ('Procedure names from flow_discover_api'). The tool description references 'discovered read-only GET endpoints' but does not add further semantic details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 specifies the verb 'Test whether discovered read-only GET endpoints work' and the resource 'read-only GET endpoints from Node with the browser's cookies alone'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like flow_discover_api by explaining the verification purpose and the benefit of skipping pages.

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 explicitly states that mutations are never tested due to cost implications, providing a clear when-not-to-use scenario. It implies that endpoints should be discovered via flow_discover_api first, but does not explicitly contrast with other sibling tools for when to use this versus alternatives.

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