I've tried using longer type variable names in some of my personal projects and found a surprising problem: it became harder to tell types from value-level expressions at a glance. In a lot of cases, I actually found the resulting code harder to read on net.
There are still times when I use longer type variable names in my code, but I now think that single-letter names are actually a good default—I need a good reason to deviate from them.
I think this happens because type signatures tend to be short, relatively self-contained and often repeated. I want to be able to parse type signatures quickly, at a glance. Longer type variables might be clearer the first time you encounter a library, but they often become a pain once you're familiar with it. (I follow the same reasoning for using short names for function arguments and local definitions that are used in a restricted scope.)
:browse through Parsec and consider how many ParsecTs you see, often with multiple in a single type signature. With this much repetition, variables consistently named by connection become useful. Sure, you might need to learn the convention, but the up-front work pays off for itself in any non-trivial use of the library. Of course, there should also be clear documentation on the type definition defining what the variables mean. Gabriel Gonzalez's Pipes library is a perfect example of how this can be done.