Get shot map and xG

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes the output structure (one entry per shot with pitch coordinates and xG) but does not mention whether the operation is read-only, any authentication requirements, rate limits, or side effects. While safety may be implicitly obvious for a data retrieval tool, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits beyond the data 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?

The description is a single, tightly written sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Shot-level Expected Goals for one match') and then adds a useful clarification about the output and use case. Every clause earns its place, with no redundancy 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently conveys what the tool returns and why it is useful. It mentions the essential fields (pitch coordinates and xG) and the intended use. It does not cover potential edge cases like matches with no shots, but that is minor given the tool's simplicity and the clarity of the primary purpose.

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%, with the single parameter 'id' described as 'Match id'. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides, such as the format or source of the id. Since the schema fully documents the parameter, the baseline of 3 applies without additional context.

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 verb ('Shot-level Expected Goals') with a precise resource ('for one match') and the purpose ('draw a shot map or model finishing quality'). It clearly distinguishes from siblings like footballstack_league_xg by explicitly scoping to a single match, so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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 provides clear context by specifying 'for one match', which implies it is not for league-level aggregates. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools (e.g., footballstack_league_xg for league xG) or state when not to use it. The context is sufficient for a straightforward choice, but it lacks explicit exclusions or alternative routing.

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