Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning about `pr`: it is matched against the design's implementation record or links, not treated as an opaque id. The token/agentName parameters are left to the schema, which documents them thoroughly.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.