You are right about the fact that Chalcedon ratified the verdict against Nestorius, but his admission of accepting the Tome is alarming.
There will always be things which can be read in ways that are most definitely NOT the intentions of the author(s). The Bible itself, for instance, can be read in countless ways by heretics of every stripe. Does this cause us to view the Bible as "alarming"? While I understand your concern, it is ultimately not damning if a heretic "likes" one of our documents, if he/she can read into it his/her heresy. Mormon's have done as much with St. Athanasius' and St. Irenaeus' works on theosis. What does matter, as I've said before, is what the Orthodox say in return about this heretic. Now, you say next that
anathemizing a heretic does not grant automatic orthodoxy, for monophysites and Nestorians would anathemize each other and both are still outside the sound faith.
This is true, and a good point. One cannot anathamatize a heretic and claim Orthodoxy; one must anathamatize all the necessary heretics to be Orthodox. Chalcedon does this, as you have agreed. All this taken into consideration, the point does stand that in no way can this Tome truly be called Nestorian, as the context in which it was written absolutely prohibits us from reading it thusly. The orthodoxy of the Council--which is the context I just spoke of--condemns both heresies, thus balancing its doctrine within Orthodoxy.
Nestorius did not repent so we would assume he agreed with the orthodoxy of the Tome, and the Bazaar condemns him even more in other aspects of the faith with multiple heresies. To have a document of faith with which a heretic agrees and takes it as to represent his christology, together with the division it caused and the monumental effects it had in the East, should have prompted a clarification from Leo of Rome about what he really meant with the Tome. Leo of Rome spent another ten years in his episcopate, and he wrote many letters in which he never deviated from the Tome.
This is a good point. I wish he'd done this, as well. However, I don't think the Tome needs clarification, as all the Orthodox knew what he meant. For the sake of mercy towards the weaker-minded and Nestorianism-prone, it would have been a good move.
I am sure that your understanding of the Tome is orthodox, but my own opinion is that EO do not interpret the Tome, they add to the Tome what is not written in it. Regardless, is the Tome necessary at all ?
I think the Tome has much to say about the Chalcedonian understanding of the two natures of Christ, so yes, it's a necessary and (to us) edifying read. As to the allegation that we "add" things to the Tome, well, one is always bound to "add" the hindsight of reflection and further theological deliberation to anything written before such illumination--Augustine has written eloquently about this--is this not the definition of interpretation? St. Leo was using the language of Chalcedon in his Tome and, though a more thorough understanding of Chacedon has since blossomed within the Church since that time, it in no way has "added" anything that had been lacking from the original decision: that Christ is one, divine Logos, with a fully human nature and a fully divine nature that are inseparably united (and were never for one second separate), though were never confused or mingled.
Again, it is to THAT definition--the one a group in question itself provides IN RESPONSE to a heretical interpretation of the work in question--that one must finally look at, , and not the heretical interpretation itself.