trmnl_list_public_booking_events

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

Annotations already cover read-only/idempotent/open-world safety, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the rolling one-week window from start_at, times rendered in the room's time zone, and the collection-token branch that selects a single room via resource_type/resource_id. It does not describe page size or whether bookings outside the window appear.

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 content is compact, but the phrasing is awkward and fragmented ('Public: no bearer token, so it is not an account operation and no agent tool offers it'), with the window semantics buried mid-paragraph. The trailing endpoint reference is useful but tacked on.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the definition covers auth model, time window, time zone, and collection scoping, but says nothing about the shape of returned bookings or whether the week is truncated/limited, which an agent calling it would want to know.

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 only 33%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that start_at anchors a rolling week in room time, and that resource_type/resource_id are meaningful only for collection tokens (which pick one room). The unmentioned 'profile' parameter is a minor residual gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the bookings') and pins down the public/unauthenticated viewpoint, which distinguishes it from trmnl_list_room_bookings. The sibling differentiation is present but implicit rather than naming the alternative directly.

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 makes clear this is the public, no-bearer-token variant and that no agent tool covers it, implying when it applies. However, it never explicitly says 'use trmnl_list_room_bookings for authenticated listings' or states prerequisites for obtaining the token beyond the schema note.

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