analyze_sentiment

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

无annotations提供，描述需承担全部责任。描述说明了返回JSON格式包含情感分布、热度趋势和相关新闻，但未提及任何副作用、权限需求或对数据的影响，行为透明度中等。

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?

描述结构清晰，包含功能、建议、参数说明、返回值和示例，各部分简明。没有冗余信息，但Args部分与schema重复命名，增加了可读性但略长，整体仍算简洁。

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?

有输出schema，描述不必详述返回格式，但提供了概要。6个参数全部详细说明，并给出示例，对于复杂分析工具来说完整度较高。

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描述覆盖率为0%，但描述中对每个参数（topic, platforms, date_range, limit, sort_by_weight, include_url）都给出了详细解释，包括默认值、作用以及注意事项（如去重、节省token），完全补偿了schema的不足。

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?

描述明确说明'分析新闻的情感倾向和热度趋势'，动词+资源清晰，但未与兄弟工具（如analyze_topic_trend、analyze_data_insights）进行区分，目的基本明确但缺乏独特性说明。

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?

提供了明确的建议：使用自然语言日期时先调用resolve_date_range，这是很好的指导。但未说明何时不使用此工具或替代方案，缺乏明确的排除条件。

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