Get league xG analytics

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the core return content (ranking dimensions), but it omits behavioral details such as what happens when season is omitted, whether data availability varies by league, or how invalid league codes are handled. The read-only nature is only implied by the name 'get' and the word 'analytics.'

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 sentence that front-loads the scope ('Season-level... for a league') before enumerating the four output dimensions. Every phrase earns its place; there is no repetition of the title or filler.

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 simple 2-parameter tool with 100% schema coverage, the description is largely complete: it substitutes for the missing output schema by naming the return dimensions. The only notable gaps are the unstated season-default behavior and the absence of explicit guidance distinguishing it from the match-level xg tool, which are minor given the tool's low complexity.

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 100%: both 'league' (with example codes) and 'season' (with format example) are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific resource (Expected Goals analytics), a precise scope (season-level, league-wide), and the output contents (teams ranked by xG generated, conceded, over/underperformance, shot efficiency). The 'Season-level' and 'for a league' framing clearly differentiates it from the match-level xg sibling, openfoot_match_xg.

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 context for when to use this tool is clear: 'Season-level' signals aggregate league analytics rather than single-match data, which distinguishes it from openfoot_match_xg and openfoot_matches. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls one step short of the explicit-routeing bar.

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