Get match shot map & xG

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does reveal that the output is shot-level and enumerates included attributes such as pitch coordinates, shot type, situation, outcome, and cumulative xG. However, it does not describe response structure, availability limitations, or error behavior, making this partial rather than full transparency.

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?

The description is a single sentence with no filler, and the core concept 'shot-level Expected Goals data' is front-loaded. The list of included data elements is compact and informative, making the description appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description must supply return-value expectations, and it does enumerate the main fields. However, it omits the exact response shape, how cumulative xG is represented, and any edge-case behavior, so completeness is moderate even for a low-complexity tool.

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?

The only parameter, matchId, is fully described in the schema as being returned by openfoot_matches, giving 100% schema description coverage. The description itself adds no additional parameter semantics, but the schema already handles this dimension adequately.

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 clearly identifies the tool as returning shot-level Expected Goals data with coordinates, shot type, situation, outcome, and cumulative xG, and the title reinforces that this is a match shot map/xG tool. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like openfoot_league_xg, but the match-specific and shot-level focus is clear.

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 implies this tool is for retrieving shot-level xG data for a specific match, but it never states when to use it versus openfoot_match_events or openfoot_league_xg. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions, so the agent must infer usage from the name and description.

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