create_content_query

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does add two genuinely useful traits: the operation is paid (spending side effect) and it requires content:write plus spending:execute scopes. It omits cost magnitude, whether an existing query is overwritten, and whether the spend is recoverable, so the mutation/expense profile is only partially covered.

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 the action front-loaded and no filler or redundancy. It is arguably under-sized for the operation's complexity, but nothing is wasted and it reads cleanly.

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 5-parameter, cost-incurring creation tool with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the description covers only purpose, cost, and scope. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but the input contract is entirely undocumented by either structured fields or prose.

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% across 5 parameters, so the description must compensate and it does not. It says nothing about keyword, project_id, or the country/language/persona_id defaults, leaving the agent to infer all input meaning from bare property names.

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: 'Run paid SERP/content analysis and create a query.' An agent can tell this produces a content query from a keyword-based SERP analysis. It does not differentiate from siblings like save_content_query_draft, get_content_query, or check_serp, which overlap in the keyword/SERP/query space.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named despite several plausible siblings (check_serp, list_content_queries, save_content_query_draft). The 'paid' qualifier and required scopes hint at caution, but the agent is left to infer the condition that selects this tool.

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