policy_hot_signals

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that it invokes a local Node script and returns JSON, and that it filters by keywords. However, it does not mention network dependency, possible latency, rate limits, freshness guarantees, or what happens if the local script fails.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then delivers data sources, use case, filter capability, integration targets, and return format. The informal '轮子' adds slight noise but every informative clause 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 exact return details are covered elsewhere. The description covers what the tool fetches, why it exists, how to filter, and which policy tools it integrates with. It lacks operational caveats like external network reliance or script availability, but for normal invocation it is sufficiently complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only a minor keyword example ('政策,规划,会议') and otherwise repeats what the schema already provides. It does not compensate for anything missing because little is missing.

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 ('抓取'), a concrete resource ('抖音/微博/百度/B站/快手实时热搜'), and a clear purpose ('作为政策市场关注度的舆情佐证'). It clearly distinguishes this from policy-text or market-link tools by framing it as a sentiment/heat-signal collector.

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 description gives clear context: use it as public-opinion evidence for policy-market attention, and it explicitly mentions linkage with policy_daily / policy_market_link. It does not state when-not-to-use or name alternatives, but the intended role is evident.

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