convert_micros

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

The annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is already covered. The description adds the conversion ratio and pure conversion nature, but it does not describe the return value format, rounding behavior, or any edge cases. This is useful but not rich behavioral context.

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 compact and front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by the critical conversion context and a minimal Args list. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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 two-parameter utility tool, the description covers purpose and parameters well. However, there is no output schema and the description does not state what the tool returns or any precision/rounding behavior, which leaves a minor gap for an agent deciding how to use the result.

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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter documentation. It fully explains both parameters: 'value' is the number to convert, and 'direction' is explicitly given as 'to_micros' or 'from_micros' with their meanings. This exceeds what the minimal schema provides.

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 ('convert') and resource ('micros and currency amounts'), and gives the key domain fact that $1.00 = 1,000,000 micros. This clearly distinguishes the tool from the unrelated sibling account, campaign, and ad management tools.

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: Google Ads uses micros for monetary values, so an agent knows when conversion is needed. It also explains both directions, making usage straightforward. No alternative tool exists among siblings, so explicit exclusion is unnecessary.

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