I would like to be convinced that later Tibetan Madhyamika does not do this. Can anyone here help me out?
Hmmm, that is going to be obviously quite a task. Because majority of the fundamental understanding, especially within the gelug and sakya tradition, is done through the process of debate. This tradition of debate is not created by the Tibetans; it has been inherited from ancient nalanda traditions. If we examine some of the biographies of the mahasiddhas, such as naropa, u can see that they are actually gatekeepers of the certain gates of the monasteries (i.e. Debaters placed to protect the philosophical traditions of the Buddha, to put it very very loosely). As a result, these ideas and subtle differences are refined again and again through debates, which may take place face to face, or letters. It is through this refining process that one gains an understanding of madhyamika through logical reasoning. Hence, as the subtle differences arise from the ways people refine things, to undo all these refinements will not be an easy thing to do.
That being said, I wouldn't think of it as useless elaborations, but points of consideration to clear away doubts whenever such doubt arises. U can think of it as the great debate btw pureland schools and the humanistic buddhism movement. Till now, i still have my reservations towards humanistic buddhism (nevertheless, my respect for Reverend Yin Shun and his works are definite), and u will notice that under the heat of criticisms from reverend yin shun (refer to his works such as those on pureland (净土与禅, for instance), there has been an increase in the emphasis of study in pureland buddhism as well. AFAIK, reverend Jin Kung has pioneered many translations, and many transcripts have been published dealing with topics on pureland. Though the main method of reciting the names if Amitabha Buddha is still the heart, but now it is supplemented with more instructions, such as the 48 ways of meditating on Buddha's name, etc. with a lot of explicit details, and it is necessarily a good thing, because it informs practitioners, putting them in a better position to understand buddha dharma. It also presents a clear distinction of what pureland practice is like in contrast to the narrations of Venerable Yin Shun and his camp.
In all, i wouldn't think this is convincing enough to convince u that tibetan madhyamika is simple, but what i would hope to achieve is to shed (a little i hope?) light that in any tradition, be it Chinese, Tibetan, or even Thai, Burmese, etc. there will definitely be more specifications and refinements to make the standpoint clearer. These refinements are necessary to refute any possible doubts on the doctrine. I wouldn't think it's easy to adapt to it, but ultimately, rely on the teacher who teaches the right path, and discern whatever he teaches carefully. I think this is the most important of all.
Hope this helps!