convert_micros

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered and the description only needs to add domain context. It does so usefully by supplying the exact micros-to-dollar ratio, which is the key behavioral fact an agent needs to reason about results. It stops short of saying whether this is a pure local computation or what precision/rounding is applied.

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 short explanatory sentences followed by a compact Args block; the core definition and the conversion ratio are front-loaded before any parameter detail. Every sentence carries information and there is no 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 two-parameter, no-output-schema utility, the definition supplies purpose, the conversion factor, and per-parameter meaning, which is close to sufficient. The remaining gap is return-value shape (a number in the opposite unit, and any rounding behavior), which an agent must guess.

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 carries the full burden and does compensate: it explains that 'value' is the quantity being converted and spells out the two valid 'direction' strings ('to_micros' for currency to micros, 'from_micros' for micros to currency), which the schema leaves as a bare string with a default. It does not restate that 'direction' defaults to 'to_micros' or clarify the expected numeric type/units of 'value' for each direction.

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 ('Convert') and the exact resource pair ('between micros and currency amounts'), and the second sentence pins down the domain meaning with a concrete ratio ($1.00 = 1,000,000 micros). No sibling tool in the list performs unit conversion, so there is nothing to confuse it with.

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 context by noting that Google Ads uses micros for monetary values, which suggests when the tool is relevant, and the 'direction' argument names both operating modes. However, it never says explicitly when to reach for this tool (e.g., before passing a budget amount into create_budget) or when not to, so the guidance remains implicit.

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