I'm going to go somewhat against particularly sphennings' answer and say that "bonus questions" or "bonus points for..." can be appropriate.
I've used that myself at times. Searching among my own questions reveals that I have used the word "bonus" in 11 different questions up to when I originally wrote this answer, though not all of those is in this type of context.
If the answer to a "bonus question" naturally builds on or builds up to the answer to the main question, and the bonus question is directly related to what the main question is already asking about, then it's probably okay. I realize that this isn't exactly a hard-and-fast rule, and that it is open to interpretation, but the intention is to separate the case of something like
How well would precision guided munitions work against early aircraft? Oh, and if they work well, how would the people of the world refer to the head of state?
which are obviously unrelated, from something like
How should I calibrate and estimate pyrokinesis? Bonus points if your answer makes sense scientifically.
which places additional optional constraints on the answers that a person answering the question can choose whether or not to adhere to.
(Yes, I just took two question titles off the front page and added something extra to them. No opinion about the two questions implied!)
Alternatively, consider an old question of my own, which asks
Does intelligence necessarily lead to an abstract language? [...] Bonus points for answers that discuss how such a language might also evolve over time as the species evolves. Bonus points also for specific citations, but citations are not a substitute for answers being well-reasoned in their own right.
In that particular case, discussion on how a language might evolve as a species evolves (because the question is about an intelligent species, the intent is evolution towards more intelligent), in my opinion, very nicely builds up to the answer to whether intelligence necessarily leads to an abstract language, but it isn't really required to answer the main question if you can make a convincing argument without it.
Quite simply:
If a "bonus question" causes a question to actually ask multiple different, unrelated questions, then this should probably be pointed out in comments, perhaps edited out, and/or the question put on hold as too broad. Just because someone uses the word "bonus" doesn't give them a free pass to break the rules. However, if the "bonus question" wouldn't cause the question to be too broad in the absence of the word "bonus", then the fact that the OP uses that word doesn't by itself make a question too broad. (This isn't Server Fault, where your question is insta-offtopic if you happen to use the words "at home" in it.)
Always look at the whole question being posted. If in your opinion it's too broad, flag or vote to close. Asking multiple different, especially if they are unrelated, questions in a single question post is one solid criteria I tend to use myself for judging whether a question as posted is too broad. However, if the "bonus" could be edited into the main question with no change of intent, then the "bonus" probably doesn't make enough of a difference to, on its own, warrant swaying the pendelum from "flag/VTC" to "don't flag/VTC" or the other way around.
Taking one of my examples from above, we could take
How should I calibrate and estimate pyrokinesis? Bonus points if your answer makes sense scientifically.
and rephrase it as
How should I calibrate and estimate pyrokinesis, preferably but not necessarily in a way that makes sense scientifically?
at which point we haven't changed any intent, but removed the word "bonus". If the latter is on topic, then the former is also on topic, because the only difference is stylistic.