Answer

The expression that the universe is “fine-tuned for life” is vague, and therefore it is hard to discuss. It is true that it could have been tuned better (at least as I understand it).
The physico-theological claim is different. If you randomly generate different systems of laws, the chance that such a system, without a guiding hand, would produce living creatures is negligible (life has low entropy). The fact that the system of laws in our universe did produce life means that it is special. In that sense, it is tuned toward the creation of life.
Of course, one can still ask: if that was the intention, why was it not done in a more focused and unequivocal way? Similar to the objection raised against evolution, which has a lot of fallout (creatures that went extinct because they were not fit) in order to create the next links in the chain (which will also go extinct; some will change into something more sophisticated, and some will be a dead end in the evolutionary process, which seems even more unnecessary and less directed).
On that I would make two comments:

1. The Holy One, blessed be He, wanted the world to develop and function by means of a rigid and fixed system of laws. This is a clear assumption, and one can also understand the rationale behind it (it would be very hard for us to get by in a world that does not operate according to laws. We would not know what to expect or how to conduct ourselves in different situations). Once we accept this, the burden of proof is on the questioner: prove that there is a rigid and fixed system of laws that is more efficient—that is, one that would give all the desired results (living creatures and the structure of the world) without the bad effects (the fallout, diseases, disasters, and the like). As long as you have not shown that such a system exists, you cannot object by asking why the Holy One, blessed be He, if He exists, did not create a world with a better system more suited to life. It is like asking why He did not create triangles whose angles add up to more than 180 degrees. This is what a triangle is, and something with more degrees simply would not be a triangle.
2. You cannot know what importance there is to the fallout, and to the parts of the universe that are unrelated to life. It is entirely possible that they too have a role, whether for us or some other role (for the Holy One, blessed be He). Therefore, the claim that they are unnecessary is unfounded.

More generally, I would put it this way. The physico-theological argument is similar to the watchmaker argument of Reverend Paley. If you see a very special and complex watch, you assume that there is a watchmaker who made it. It is not reasonable to think it came into being on its own. Now suppose you see that the watch does not work optimally (in your view). Is it correct to conclude from that that there is no watchmaker? Of course not. After all, it is still complex and special, and therefore it is not reasonable to think it came into being by itself without a guiding hand. At most, you should conclude that you do not understand the watchmaker’s way of thinking. To infer from this that there is no watchmaker is logical and probabilistic nonsense.