Is what I described above the "proper" method to calculate pseudo forces?
I wouldn't say that it is a method to calculate the inertial forces, but it is the result that methods for calculating inertial forces are designed to achieve. I.e. I would treat it more as a goal than as a method.
In other words, is a pseudo force just an arbitrary constant that arose out of our desperation to explain non-inertial motion?
It is not generally constant and "desperation" is an unnecessarily emotional word, but otherwise, yes.
Consider a general reference frame, either inertial or non-inertial. If you write the Lagrangian of a free particle in that reference frame, and solve the Euler equations then you will get an expression for the acceleration of a free particle in that frame. Multiply that expression by $m$ and you have the inertial forces in that frame. That is the general and systematic approach for discovering such forces.
Be aware that if your generalized coordinates include non-Cartesian spatial coordinates then some of the terms from the Lagrangian will address the spatial coordinates and not just the acceleration. Some authors do not consider those to be fictitious forces, but if you take that approach then you must identify those terms "by hand" which I don't prefer.
For example, consider the Lagrangian of a free particle in a Cartesian frame that is rotating about the $z$ axis at an angular velocity of $\Omega$. The Lagrangian is $$L = \frac{1}{2}m \dot{\vec r}^2+ m \dot{\vec r} \cdot (\vec \omega \times \vec r) + \frac{1}{2} m ( \vec \omega \times \vec r)^2$$ where $\vec r=(x,y,z)$ is the position in the rotating frame and $\vec \omega = (0,0,\Omega)$.
Solving the Euler Lagrange equation we get: $$\ddot x = \Omega^2 x + 2 \Omega \dot y$$ $$\ddot y = \Omega^2 y - 2 \Omega \dot x$$ $$\ddot z = 0$$ and we immediately recognize the first terms (multiplied by $m$, of course) as being the centrifugal force and the second terms as being the Coriolis force. The same approach can be taken for other frames.