Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, including nested item fields and the transactionId-vs-id distinction, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description only gestures at targetAccount ('booked against the given target account') and adds nothing about ledger, filename, or alias precedence, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.