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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds real behavioral context beyond them: result ordering (most recent first), the fields returned, and the history-recording precondition. This is a substantive addition, though it does not discuss pagination beyond the schema's limit.

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?

Front-loaded with the core purpose, then progressively adds the filter, the recovery paths, and the precondition. Every sentence earns its place; the text is dense but not padded.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must describe returns, and it does: ordering, deleter identity, timestamp, child count, and set membership. Combined with the history precondition, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so the schema already documents all three parameters including limit's default. The description adds a small amount of meaning for parentId ('narrows it to names that were in that set'), which matches the baseline-3 expectation when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('names that have been deleted') and enumerates the returned fields (who deleted them, when, children count, sets). It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling list_names, which lists live names.

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?

Explicitly routes the agent to alternatives: pass a deleted id to name_history for last attributes or restore_name to bring it back. It also states the precondition that only deletions recorded while history was enabled (history_settings) are listed, giving a clear when-this-works condition.

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