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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose useful behavior — the operation is synchronous ('its results are ready at once') and re-creation should be avoided so grades accumulate. It omits auth expectations despite an api_key parameter, and says nothing about failure modes or whether content is validated.

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 endpoint and resource, and every clause contributes something (return value, id reuse, result timing). The phrasing 'its content as put_item takes it' is slightly indirect and costs the reader a lookup.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need little explanation, and the description adds the key fact that the id is the handle for other query tools. Still, for a mutation-style create with no annotations and no schema descriptions, leaving `type` and `api_key` undocumented leaves the definition under-specified.

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 0%, so the description must explain all three parameters. It only characterizes `content` ('a question to ask of the items, its content as put_item takes it', a cross-reference requiring knowledge of a sibling schema) and leaves `type` and `api_key` entirely unexplained.

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+resource ('POST /queries: store a question to ask of the items') and discloses the return value ('its `id`'). It implies the relationship to siblings by saying the other query tools take that id, but never names get_query/delete_query/get_results to disambiguate directly.

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 line 'ask again with the same `id` rather than creating the same query twice, so its grades add up' is genuine when/when-not guidance about reusing ids. However, it gives no guidance on when to create a query versus using put_grade/get_results, nor on prerequisites such as api_key.

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