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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. The 'GET' prefix reasonably signals a read-only operation and the create_query round-trip detail is genuinely useful context beyond the schema. However, it says nothing about authentication requirements (despite an api_key parameter), not-found behavior, or permissions, which are the main behavioral gaps for a lookup tool.

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 compact sentence with the resource and identifier front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably over-compressed for a tool with an undocumented auth parameter, but every word present earns its place.

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 not be described, and the create_query reference covers content shape. Still, with zero annotations and zero schema coverage, the description leaves the api_key parameter and error/auth behavior entirely unexplained, which is a meaningful omission for a two-parameter 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 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. It adds some meaning for `id` by framing it as the query identifier that yields the content create_query takes, but `api_key` is never mentioned, leaving the agent with no explanation of how authentication is supplied. Half the parameter surface is undocumented in both schema and description.

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 a specific verb and resource (GET /queries/id) and pins the scope to a single query identified by `id`, which cleanly separates it from siblings like get_grid and get_node. It also cross-references create_query to define the shape of `content`, so an agent knows what comes back. It stops short of a plain-language statement of intent, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to call this versus alternatives, and no sibling covers a query-list case to contrast with, so the agent must infer that this is the single-item fetch. The only relational hint is that `content` matches what create_query accepts, which is about format rather than tool selection. No preconditions or exclusions are stated.

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