For Readability it does sound like a good idea. When reading code you will be able to know right away what the class is. As long as everyone follows the standard it is good.
Generally any kind of standard is a good thing in a team setting.
Otherwise team members might name classes in such a way that only they understand and then you could get a mix of people's different coding styles which leads to confusion.
Yes, in fact if you look at the javadocs of the standard library at http://download.oracle.com/javase/6/docs/api/ you'll find that the list of classes in the bottom-left frame begins with abstract classes using the naming convention you have mentioned in your question.
Take any one of them, say the first one, and check its definition: AbstractAction. It indeed implements Action which is again similar to your convention. It's subclasses are named like: ClosedAction, MaximizeAction, etc.
As with most questions of this type: "it depends". I like consistency and clarity, so if it works for you and your shop, great. However, if you have legacy Abstract classes, you would then want to go back and refactor them to the same naming convention.