Asset details

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety behavior is covered structurally. The description adds only a field inventory, which is already conveyed by the output schema, and says nothing about auth, rate limits, or missing-asset behavior.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; every item listed contributes to the scope. It is a sentence fragment lacking a verb, but the size is appropriate for the tool's simplicity.

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 a full output schema, complete parameter documentation, and annotations covering safety, the description only needs to establish purpose and scope, which it does. Minor missing context: no mention of error behavior when the public_id is not found.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both enum parameters are documented in the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description mentions no parameter formats (e.g. asset_id:<id> prefix) beyond what the schema already states, matching the baseline of 3.

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 names the specific verb+resource implied by 'Full metadata of one asset' and enumerates the fields returned, which separates it from list/tree/url siblings. It stops short of explicitly naming a competing sibling, so it is not a 5.

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?

'one asset' implicitly signals single-asset lookup versus cloudinary_list or cloudinary_tree, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over cloudinary_get_url or cloudinary_download. Usage must be inferred from the noun phrase.

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