1. The standard terminology is "meh" at most. The word "attention" itself is just barely intuitive, "self-attention" is worse, and don't get me started about "key" and "value".
2. The key papers (Attention is All You Need, the BERT paper, etc.) are badly written. This is probably an unpopular opinion. But note that I'm not diminishing their merits. It's perfectly compatible to write a hugely impactful, transformative paper describing an amazing breakthrough, but just don't explain it very well. And that's exactly what happened, IMO.
3. The way in which these architectures were discovered was largely by throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticked. There is no reflection process that ended on a prediction that such an architecture would work well, which was then empirically verified. It's empirical all the way through. This means that we don't have a full understanding of why it works so well, all explanations are post hoc rationalizations (in fact, lately there is some work implying that other architectures may work equally well if tweaked enough). It's hard to explain something that you don't even fully understand.
Everyone who is trying to explain transformers has to overcome these three disadvantages... so most explanations are confusing.