>>13561377>Right planetary massThis definition is extremely broad. There is nothing to suggest life couldn't exist in more or less massive planets.
The radius of a potentially habitable exoplanet would range between 0.5 and 2.5 Earth radii. We are finding new rocky planets in this range regularly. So it's safe to say this property is not rare at all.
>Plate tectonicsThis is key, and we don't know how common or rare it is.
However, similar effects could be obtained from tidal heating, so again, it's not so special as it seems.
>The right amount of oceanWater is extremely common in the Galaxy. Non-issue.
We have found several water worlds and water moons already.
>Right amount of carbonCarbon is the fourth most abundant chemical element in the observable universe by mass after hydrogen, helium, and oxygen. Carbon is abundant in the Sun, stars, comets, and in the atmospheres of most planets. This is a non-issue.
>Large MoonThis is a key property, because the tides caused by the Moon are thought to have helped in the development of life.
We haven't found another planet with a satellite as large relative to its mass as the Moon is to Earth, but not because it's rare, but because our capacity for observation of exoplanets is still limited. As long as the JWST isn't operational we won't be able to know how common or rare this is for sure.
Also, tidal effects also happen on satellites orbiting large gas giants, so this does not preclude the possibility of life happening in those conditions.
>Evolution of oxygenConsequence of life. Non-issue. Self-referential.
>Right amount of tiltThis one is important. Either the planet must have low tilt and medium orbital eccentricity, or medium tilt and low eccentricity. Earth is special in that regard, though probably not unique.