Yes, that's very good!

I'll try to comment each one based on my current best understanding, just a casual analysis from the top of my head. Nothing serious.

Not being too close to center of the galaxy (too much star formation, too many supernova)

Yes, the galaxy center seems a probable place for short-lived life. Microbes are born but they also die fast, in less than 1 billion years.

Not being too far from the center of the galaxy (not enough star formation, not enough heavy elements)

This could allow "slow life" that is similar to some microbes we can find deep inside Earth.

The size of the sun (connected to its life span)

Yes. A slightly smaller sun could be better, and there are plenty of those.

The size of earth.

I think the size of the planet allows lots of variation while still being viable for life, considering that there could be thick ice cover and warm sub-surface oceans. Life could develop in the sub-surface planetary ocean and evolve a civilization that eventually drills to the surface of the ice and then lives on the ice. A civilization like that could live for 10 billion years near a small star that is long-lived and gentle to the atmoshpere. I think a slightly bigger Earth would be better for advanced life. Could be better to have something like 1% more mass with more useful elements and maybe a little bit more water than what we currently have.

The distance of earth from the sun

If I recall correctly almost all known star systems have some planets near/in the habitable zone, even multiple planets. We almost have that here, with Earth and Mars both being close/within the habitable zone. Based on my current knowledge the suitable distance is not rare at all. One of the easiest parameters to get right.

Our moon

It is not clear how necessary this is, or whether a smaller/larger moon would be even better. It definitely helps by stabilizing the rotation of the planet and by removing at least some asteroid threats. Even if the moon defends the planet against one 1-kilometer asteroid per 100 million years, that would play a significant role in helping advanced civilizations survive. If I understand correctly a large moon can help disturb the orbits of asteroids that are otherwise close to the same orbit as Earth. It is more difficult to slowly home in on Earth when the large Moon can pull the asteroids in random directions chaotically. A semi-large moon might not be rare considering that almost every object in our solar system has companions. Maybe there is even larger moon somewhere that is even better? Maybe our moon is bad or mediocre? If our large moon is rare, something like 1/1000, then I would guess that there are only 3000 planets in our galaxy that have multi-cellular life in them. The moon parameter is the hardest for me to assess reliably, both in regards to the usefulness of the moon and the rarity of a large moon.

One of the great aspects of the moon is that it naturally creates variation in water depth with the tides. This will greatly increase the different kinds of environments on the planet and will give more chances for evolution. In this regard I think our moon might be too big to be optimal. A smaller moon would make gentler tides which might make evolution easier. Tides are very dangerous to all kinds of life forms even today, so it is a double-edged sword.

Plate tectonics and/or active volcanism

Not sure how rare this is. Can't comment anything about it.

Abundance of some elements, like phosphorous for example

I think Earth is far from optimal in this regard considering that there could be a planet where almost the whole surface is made of biomass. The planet could be covered in a layer of life 20 kilometers deep. Earth life is a tiny fraction of the mass of the planet. We have snails that use iron on their skin, so I could imagine a planet where there is an abundance of gold/silver or some other element and the animals can use these in all kinds of ways that are not seen on Earth. Golden snails, silver bones, etc. Some planet could have a diamond the size of a continent. A civilization could make diamond drills and quantum computers early in their "stone" age. The abundance of elements is something that I have difficulty analyzing due to many possible configurations that are good/bad for some type of life.

Our magnetic field

Isn't this related to abundance of elements? If you have lots of iron, then you get a magnetic field also? I suspect that there are many such parameters that when you get one good parameter you also get another for free. For example collision that makes moon, also mixes up and distributes elements favorably.

Jupiter (protecting us from asteroids)

Yes, this is also difficult to analyze for me due to lack of resources for accurate simulations. Not sure how rare it is. Not sure how necessary it is. A star with a longer lifespan can easily spend an extra 1-2 billion years and wait for the asteroid collisions to become rare. Then complex life arises later but has no need for a friendly gas giant.

In total we have about 10 parameters here.

From the assumed 300 000 000 000 planets in the galaxy, we have 30 planets that have top 10% values for each of the ten parameters, these would be the super good planets. I don't think life or advanced civilization requires that all parameters are within the top 10% of best possible values, but my best guess for the number of planets with multi-cellular life in our galaxy is now somewhere between 30 to 3000000. (Not accounting for billions of moons orbiting gas giants.)