"Is it not bad practice to force the user to install a module just for the tests?"

Not necessarily.

In general, I'd expect the user to run `make test` (perhaps via cpan or other, similar utility). My Makefile.PL files typically include:

    'Test::More' => 0,
[download]

Do note that if you're using features from later versions, you should adjust the minimum version accordingly; for instance, if you use done_testing(), you'll need:

    'Test::More' => 0.88,
[download]

The end-user is not expected to run Author Tests. These usually require $ENV{RELEASE_TESTING} (or similar) to have a TRUE value. I don't know what you're using at the moment, but I believe I've seen Test::Pod and Test::Pod::Coverage (maybe others).

My current practice is to list the modules needed for Author Tests in the README file; although, that's a fairly recent thing and I'm still evaluating whether to continue with it. However, I also supply a safety net. Here's one of my test files (specifically for personal use):

$ cat 99-00_pod.t
#!perl

use v5.36;

use Test::More;

BEGIN {
    if (! $ENV{CPAN_AUTHOR_TEST}) {
        plan skip_all => 'Author test: $ENV{CPAN_AUTHOR_TEST} false.';
    }
}

eval {
    use Test::Pod 1.52;
    1;
} or do {
    plan skip_all => 'Test::Pod 1.52 required.';
};

all_pod_files_ok();
[download]

Skipping means that tests don't fail but do report what test module was missing. I only recommend this for Author Tests.

You're welcome to use that. You'd need to make some adjustments around version numbers. Also, I use RELEASE_TESTING for $work; CPAN_AUTHOR_TEST, in my personal code, avoids conflicts.