The German article links to a different page for the column description than the English one, where it's linked to radiant flux, not radio flux.
In the context of the table, it would only make sense for it to be the stellar flux received at the orbital distance from the star (so more like radiant than radio flux). It's just how much stellar energy is present in the planet's neighbourhood relative to what the Earth gets.
The table on Wikipedia, however, is suspect, in that it has entries with higher flux and lower effective temperature. This is unphysical, as this should follow from the black body radiation that more flux equals higher effective temperature (depending on the level of the presentation, the calculation might be useful to show). It's possible some entries use effective temperature above the atmosphere, and some use the surface temp assuming certain atmospheric composition. Hard to tell where the discrepancies come from without tracking each source individually.
It's a common issue on the Wiki where different sources are often supplied for different values, without much regard for how they're calibrated or how they fit together - which is why you should always pick a more curated source for more serious purposes.
If you look at the table(s) below:
https://phl.upr.edu/projects/habitable-exoplanets-catalog
from the Arecibo's Planetary Habitability Laboratory at UPR, the entries are more consistent. You'll see that it's at least in some sections (e.g. the definitions in the German article) it's what formed the basis for the Wiki articles.
Radio flux itself is unlikely to be of issue for habitability. It's true that main sequence stars lower on the H-R diagram have higher relative radio flux. The lower the black body temperature, the more shifted the spectrum towards the longer wavelengths is. But it's the shorter wavelengths that you should be worried about with regard to atmospheric stripping or biological sterilisation.
Having said that, I've seen papers discussing the high propensity of low-mass stars for flaring - which spikes high-frequency emissions - and how it may or may not affect habitability (I've seen both for and against arguments). I don't have the literature wherewithal to tell you what's the consensus on that, though. You may want to do a deep dive e.g. on arxiv, if you care and have some intuitions on how to judge papers. Or just mention it in passing. Or not at all.
Another thing you might want to include is how the basic black body radiation or standard Earth-like atmosphere pictures can be altered by differing planetary atmospheres. Kopparapu et al. 2013 may or may not be over your head (we don't know your background) but in any case it does include a nice interactive calculator for how habitable zones are affected by different strengths of greenhouse effects. You'll find the link to the calc in the paper (to be found on arxiv or elsewhere).
