Recommend a Codex model and effort

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

Annotations already establish it is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description usefully adds that no model call occurs and that the result comes from a documented matrix reconciled against the installed catalog. That tells the agent the output is deterministic and catalog-bound, though it doesn't say how recommendations change as the catalog updates.

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 tight sentences with zero filler; the core purpose leads and the no-model-call caveat follows as needed qualification.

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 two-parameter advisory tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, that it is deterministic, and where its knowledge comes from. It stops short of characterizing the returned recommendation's shape (model name plus effort level), which would fully close the loop.

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 both parameters (task_description and the priority enum with its quality/latency/cost bias) are already fully documented. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (recommend) and precise resource (Codex model plus reasoning effort) and clarifies the input it keys off (a task description). It also implicitly separates itself from the execution siblings by noting it runs no model call, unlike codex_delegate.

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 phrase 'to delegate it with' implies this is a pre-delegation advisory step, but it never explicitly says 'call this before codex_delegate' or names any alternative path. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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