If you strive to make your function names as self-documenting as possible, you then end up with the following situation: either
1) Long-named functions become a signal that code structure is suboptimal and can be refactored to split functionality / responsibilities appropriately, until the function has a reasonable name, or
2) You are working with code that cannot be refactored, in which case the long, cumbersome, but otherwise highly informative name is doing you a favour, as well as possibly forcing you to wrap meaningful interfaces around it to make you less reliant on calling that monstrosity directly as much as possible.
So yes, I always try to make my function names contain as much relevant information as possible.
If you strive to make your function names as self-documenting as possible, you then end up with the following situation: either
1) Long-named functions become a signal that code structure is suboptimal and can be refactored to split functionality / responsibilities appropriately, until the function has a reasonable name, or
2) You are working with code that cannot be refactored, in which case the long, cumbersome, but otherwise highly informative name is doing you a favour, as well as possibly forcing you to wrap meaningful interfaces around it to make you less reliant on calling that monstrosity directly as much as possible.
So yes, I always try to make my function names contain as much relevant information as possible.