We have an answer suggesting that we should have a questionnaire for the Pro-Tempore Moderator election. If I may, I will offer a counter-argument, and suggest that we should rather just ask candidates to write a brief statement saying what they think that they bring to the role.
As stated in the other answer, the reason that a questionnaire might be useful is that is may give us a chance to compare the moderation styles of different users. This matters mainly because the SE Theory of Moderation offers fairly broad guidance, but is open to a range of interpretations.
Some sites like moderators to be relatively interventionist, as suggested by this post on Meta:SE on the subject of when moderators should use their 'super-votes'. Other sites (like History:SE, where I am currently a Pro-Tempore Moderator) prefer mods to take a lighter touch, and (to quote the Theory of Moderation):
"... do as little as possible."
SE sites are, after all, community moderated.
However, the real problem with questionnaires is that they can become quite long and (perhaps) tedious to read through all the responses if we get multiple nominations for moderators. Answers can sometimes also often become rather 'formulaic', just following what has been posted by previous answers.
So, maybe, just asking candidates to write a (brief) answer saying things like what times of day they are likely to be active on the site, and what they hope to bring to the role might be a better approach than a formal questionnaire?
We could certainly have a short list of bullet-points that we ask candidates to cover in their answers, but (personally) I think we should keep that list as short as possible.