Get league xG table

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does reveal the output content (xG for/against, over/under-performance versus actual goals), which is genuinely useful, but it stays silent on aggregation semantics, default league behavior, limits, or any other behavioral traits beyond the return content.

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?

Two tight sentences with the core resource front-loaded and no filler. The 'right tool' phrasing is slightly promotional but economical, and everything present 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?

For a single-optional-parameter, read-style tool with 100% schema coverage, the description covers the return contents adequately. It's nearly complete, lacking only an explicit nod to how it differs from the match-level xG sibling.

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% and the schema already documents the lone parameter ('League id; omit for the default league set'). The description adds nothing about the parameter beyond the schema, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 ('League-wide xG and performance table') with a clear verb and delineated content (xG for, xG against, over/under-performance versus actual goals). It's clear, though it only implicitly differentiates from the sibling footballstack_match_xg via the 'league-wide' framing rather than naming it.

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?

Provides a concrete use-case anchor ('The right tool for "is this team overperforming?" questions') that tells an agent when to reach for it. However, it never names alternatives like footballstack_match_xg or states when NOT to use it, leaving some routing to inference.

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