Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 67%, which is moderate, and the description adds value beyond the structured definitions. It clarifies that omitting integrationId means adding an EVM 0x address on every supported EVM network, and that non-EVM addresses require an integrationId. This conditional behavior is not fully spelled out in the schema's property descriptions, so the description meaningfully compensates for gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.