Have a look at page 311 in the original paper from Carr, Geman, Madan and Yor (2002). The paramters are for the names of the authors. They explain the role of each parameter there. Note that $C>0$, $G\geq0$, $M\geq0$ and $Y<2$.
These parameters play an important role in capturing various aspects of the
stochastic process under study. The parameter $C$ may be viewed as a measure
of the overall level of activity. Keeping the other parameters constant and
integrating over all moves exceeding a small level, we see that the aggregrate
activity level may be calibrated through movements in $C$. For example, if one
were to construct a model with a stochastic aggregate activity rate, then one
could model $C$ as an independent positive process, possibly following a square
root law of its own. In the special case when $G=M$, the Lévy measure is
symmetric, and, in this case, Madan et al. (1998) show that the parameter $C$
provides control over the kurtosis of the distribution of $X(t)$.
This point seems important to you:
The parameters $G$ and $M$, respectively, control the rate of exponential decay
on the right and left of the Lévy density, leading to skewed distributions when
they are unequal. For $G<M$, the left tail of the distribution for $X(t)$ is heavier
than the right tail, which is consistent with the risk-neutral distribution typically
implied from option prices. Thus, when $G$ and $M$ are implied from the
risk-neutral distribution, their difference calibrates the price of a fall relative
to a rise, while their sum measures the price of a large move relative to a
small one. In contrast, in the statistical distribution, the difference between $G$
and $M$ determines the relative frequency of drops relative to rises, while their
sum measures the frequency of large moves relative to small ones. The exponential
factor in the numerator of the Lévy density leads to the finiteness
of all moments for the process $X(t)$. As we typically construct a process at
the return level, it is reasonable to enforce finiteness of the moments at this
level.
Note that $C$ and $Y$ don't change if you switch between equivalent measures.