There's really nothing that names like "MIT License", "BSD License", "European Union Public License", "GNU General Public License", "Apache License, version 2.0",or "Mozilla Public License" tell me except the organization behind the license and the fact it's a license. "Blue Oak Model License" conveys about the same information.

Also, it's not maximally permissive per se. 0BSD, for one, permits you to distribute the software even if you, for some reason, do not want to include the original license text with it.

If these licenses weren't already well known I might hear "MIT License" and recognize MIT as a well established and prestigious institution and assume the license therefore has some legitimacy. I might also guess that as an academic institution the license won't be focused on protecting commercial interests as much as sharing knowledge, though I couldn't be certain about that. Similarly for the other established institutions. "General Public License" is quite general, but I could guess it's intended for general purpose use rather than a specific project and that it is public rather than private or commercial.

But these licenses are already well known so the fact that their names are not terrible explicit is less relevant today. A new license hoping to gain adoption should try and do better but "Blue Oak" is clearly worse. It is also not an institution that seems likely to establish a reputation for things beyond the license, unlike MIT, Mozilla or the EU.

Legal theory of operation for warranty disclaimers and damages exclusions---the ALL CAPS bits of old licenses---remains mostly speculation, especially with contract-license ambiguity. But most studied opinions I'm aware of, including my own, doubt that 0BSD, Unlicense, and other terms without terms-notice rules ensure meaningful protection. For evidence of a view even more skeptical than Blue Oak's, see section 8 of Apache 2.0:

https://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0#additional

There are jurisdictions where the whole issue is moot, since meaningful warranties simply can't be disclaimed. But disclaimer, exclusion, and limits on liability are enforceable in many jurisdictions, including the vast majority of the United States.

For license name I think distinctive is more important than descriptive. It's not like you can really rely on the name telling anything useful anyways

Established licenses are named in a way that would tell me more even if they weren't established. Given that they are established a new license faces more of an uphill struggle and an informative name would help in my opinion.

Blue Oak is the steward of the license. It seems like they're going for an FSF-style organization for permissive licenses.

Probably a bad idea, but roll with it. :)

Free Software Foundation is a good example of the sort of name that would be more informative. Naming is hard but I still try and call my functions things like ValidateNoDuplicates() rather than WhiteAsh().