sm_expected_xg

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the xG add-on plan requirement, which is a useful prerequisite, but omits other behavioral traits such as read-only status, rate limits, or what happens if the add-on is missing. The description is too sparse to adequately inform an agent about side effects or access constraints.

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 clear sentence with no redundant words. It front-loads the main action and costs minimal tokens. However, it is so brief that it sacrifices necessary details, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and 3 parameters with minimal schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It fails to explain the return format, the meaning of 'include', or detailed parameter behavior. An agent would likely need to guess or experiment to use this tool correctly, especially with the undocumented 'include' parameter.

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 only 33% (only 'id' is described). The description's 'by team or player' hint partially clarifies the 'id' and 'mode' purpose, but the 'include' parameter is completely unexplained in both the schema and description. The description does not sufficiently compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 states the tool retrieves Expected Goals (xG) data, with the ability to filter by team or player. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like sm_statistics or sm_predictions, which may cover broader or different stats.

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 the tool should be used when xG data is needed and mentions the add-on plan requirement, but it does not explicitly state when alternatives should be used or provide exclusions. The 'by team or player' phrasing gives some context on input modes, but no direct comparison to siblings.

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