require-meta-schema-description errors when properties is not iterable

[FloEdelmann]

See https://github.com/vuejs/eslint-plugin-vue/blob/v9.29.1/lib/rules/no-parsing-error.js:

const DEFAULT_OPTIONS = Object.freeze(
  Object.assign(Object.create(null), {
    'abrupt-closing-of-empty-comment': true,
    // …
    'x-invalid-namespace': true
  })
)

module.exports = {
  meta: {
    // …
    schema: [
      {
        type: 'object',
        properties: Object.fromEntries(
          Object.keys(DEFAULT_OPTIONS).map((code) => [
            code,
            { type: 'boolean' }
          ])
        ),
        additionalProperties: false
      }
    ],
  },
  // …
}

The newly added require-meta-schema-description rule errors for this file:

TypeError: Error while loading rule 'eslint-plugin/require-meta-schema-description': value.properties is not iterable
Occurred while linting …/eslint-plugin-vue/lib/rules/no-parsing-error.js
    at checkSchemaElement (…/eslint-plugin-vue/node_modules/eslint-plugin-eslint-plugin/lib/rules/require-meta-schema-description.js:90:42)
    at Object.create (…/eslint-plugin-vue/node_modules/eslint-plugin-eslint-plugin/lib/rules/require-meta-schema-description.js:49:7)
    at createRuleListeners (…/eslint-plugin-vue/node_modules/eslint/lib/linter/linter.js:895:21)
    at …/eslint-plugin-vue/node_modules/eslint/lib/linter/linter.js:1066:110
    at Array.forEach (<anonymous>)
    at runRules (…/eslint-plugin-vue/node_modules/eslint/lib/linter/linter.js:1003:34)
    at Linter._verifyWithFlatConfigArrayAndWithoutProcessors (…/eslint-plugin-vue/node_modules/eslint/lib/linter/linter.js:1730:31)
    at Linter._verifyWithFlatConfigArray (…/eslint-plugin-vue/node_modules/eslint/lib/linter/linter.js:1861:21)
    at Linter.verify (…/eslint-plugin-vue/node_modules/eslint/lib/linter/linter.js:1433:65)
    at Linter.verifyAndFix (…/eslint-plugin-vue/node_modules/eslint/lib/linter/linter.js:2068:29)

I think that when properties is not iterable, the rule should either report a lint violation, or ignore that. But in either case it shouldn't error.

CC @JoshuaKGoldberg as the author of the rule.