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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, and the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond those: no credits are consumed, no AI calls are made, and no secret material is involved. This informs an agent about cost, side effects, and auth expectations.

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 short sentences with zero filler. The core return statement is front-loaded, and 'No credits, no AI calls, no secret material' compresses three important caveats into a terse, readable clause.

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 parameterless, read-only metadata tool with an output schema, the description is nearly complete: it states what is returned and what side effects/costs are absent. It could add one sentence explaining when to prefer this over sibling discovery or A2A inspection tools, but nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there is no parameter burden for the description to carry. The zero-parameter baseline of 4 applies, and no input semantics are missing.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource ('AlpineLead Nexus public A2A discovery locations'), and the 'public' qualifier plus 'No credits, no AI calls, no secret material' signals a lightweight metadata operation. It is distinguishable from task/agent-discovery siblings like nexus_discover_agents, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 about when to call this tool versus sibling discovery tools such as nexus_discover_agents or agentpub_call_readonly_discovery_tool. The annotations imply it is safe to call, but the description does not explain the intended use context or any prerequisites.

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