Is this a realistic phonology?

Hi :)
I have a lang almost ready for wholesale vocab construction, but don't
wanna have to be stuck with a whole lot of useless vocab because the
phonology is unnatural.  I basically was wondering if this system is
!-fairly normal, @-unusual but possible, #-impossible but modifyable,
$-utter crap ??? Ever so grateful for any help :)

There are 27 consonants:
>> [p],[t],[k] are voiceless aspirated stops.  [k] loses its aspiration
after [s] and front vowels.  It becomes voiced b/w front vowels.

>> [b],[d] are voiced stops.  [d] is interdental /d[/, where [t] is
alveolar.

>> [q] is a voiceless post-velar stop initially, except before front
vowels, where it is an ingressive post-velar /`q/.  Medially, it is a
voiced post-velar fricative /H/.

>> [f] [s] [h] [fw] [d'] [x] are fricatives /f/, /s/, /h/, /F/ (voiceless
bilabial), /T/ (voiceless interdental), /S/ (voiceless palatal)
respectively.

>> [c] [j] are affricates.  [c] is /tS/, but [j] can be /d3/ or /3/ (free
variation).

>> [m] [n] [g] are nasals. [g] is velar /N/.
>> [w] [l] [y] are liquids. (Is that the right word?)
>> [bb] is an implosive bilabial stop /`b/.
>> [z] is a voiceless alveolar click /t!/ (occasionally nasalized in lazy
speech).  It is an implosive alveolar stop /`d/ in some traditional
dialects.

>> [b'] is a voiced bilabial trill /B/.
>> [ql] is a post-velar affricate /qR/.
>> ['] is the glottal stop [?].
Main questions:
! Is this more points of articulation than a natural language could have?
@ Are there too many fricatives?
# Does the [bb],[z],[q] series seem unlikely to have evolved?
$ Anything else?

There are 7 vowels:
[i]                     [u]
[e]=/E/    [eh]=/V/     [o]     [r]=/R/
           [a]
>> Rhoticisation [V +r] is phonemic except for [u] and [r].
>> Tone (high,low) is phonemic except for [o] and [r].
>> Length is phonemic in the dipthongs [ehi], [ehii], and rarely [a] and
[aa]

Main questions:
! Is it naive to call [r] a vowel?  There is no consonant form in the
language.
@ About 15% of content words and 30% of "grammar" words so far use the
high tone stress.  Shouldn't this be radically increased?
# Is it less than likely that [ehi] /Vi/ and [ai] /ai/ would regularly
contrast as minimal pairs as they do in this language?  How 'bout [ehi]
and [oehi] /o@i/?
$ Is it less than likely that [r] /R/, [ehr] /VR/, and [ar] /aR/ can all
be found in the same language as separate sounds? (although [ehr] amd [ar]
never contrast minimally)
% Anything else?

Hey, sorry for the long winds. Thanks :)

Love,
 yasmin.