>>723403942
>strong magnetic field
not required, there's no real reason why some other environmental factor couldn't block most UV and ionizing radiation.
>get just the right amount of sunlight/warmth
within very large margins; the Earth is currently near the innermost radius of its habitable zone and has been for a sizeable portion of its lifespan (proof: the majority of plants are pigmented to block the majority of the Sun's output)
>predictable seasons
>gravity isn't too [heavy]
why would life, or intelligent life, care about that
>oxygen but not too much
self-regulating and self-causing, as "proven" by life here
>tidal pools, a moon, no asteroids, no disturbances, the ability to use tools, the ability to harness fire
not required to be living or intelligent, as far as we know.
the biggie is "don't get blasted with a massive burst of ionizing radiation for very, very long times". the kinds that go right through a magnetic field. yellow stars seem to be the most stable and long-lived enough to give those conditions. the secondary is not getting bombarded by too massive objects (the size of half its planet or greater) too often, which may be helped by an outer Jupiter. the kicker is that the vast majority of exoplanets we've seen are Hot Jupiters, so anything but an outer icy (or Cold) Jupiter, but that may be due to statistical bias of huge really bright planets being the easiest to spot.
we just don't know, but it's safe to assume that the most disruptive to long-term inhabitation of any planet are unstable stars and massive collisions. everything else matters far, far less. even liquid water, seasons, no tidal locking doesn't really matter, it only changes the likelihood of life spawning in the first place.
