(Edited/corrected/amplified) "Bounded at infinity" is a condition that includes not only cuspforms but also Eisenstein series. If by "holomorphic at infinity" one means exactly holomorphy of $f(z)$ on the quotient by translations $z\rightarrow z+1$, then this is the same as "bounded at infinity".

On another hand, if one is trying to make a (holomorphic weight $2k$) modular form $f(z)$ descend to a Riemann surface $\Gamma\backslash \mathfrak H$, it can only do so as a "symmetric differential form $f(z)\,dz^k$, that is, a section of some line bundle. Then with $q=e^{2\pi iz}$ locally, that $dz^k$ shifts the apparent Fourier expansion...

Why not just give the condition at infinity in terms of the Fourier expansion, anyway, rather than wrangle about implications?

Edit-further: while I myself do not at all think of Eisenstein series as "having poles at cusps", one can easily find such remarks in well-established literature, and the (at least two) viewpoints probably should be reconciled, whatever one thinks of the reasonableness of one or the other. Depending on "where one is going" in talking to a "general audience", the issue might not merit attention.

And one more edit! :) To be clear: for "level one" holomorphic elliptic modular forms, the three conditions in the question *do* specify cuspforms and Eisenstein series correctly. That is literally so. On another hand, as already noted in the question, this *style* of description develops problems in any more general circumstance, partly due to ambiguities in the language, and/or conflicts in usage, but also to wanting to make "holomorphy" independent of choice of coordinates (which is, in general, a good impulse). For example, cuspforms do go to zero "at infinity" in the sense of approaching a rational number inside a fixed image of fundamental domain, and, in fact, in the stronger sense of going to zero uniformly approaching the real line. But Eisenstein series blow up as the imaginary part goes to $0$, and so on. That is, this and other "dangers" easily entrap the unwary, which may include people looking at these things in an elementary way, despite the appeal of not setting up machinery. It's not just that "more complicated" set-ups are more aesthetically pleasing or stylistically "cooler", but essentially *necessary* to avoid troubles. So I recommend being *aware* of the delicacy of the literally-correct assertions 1,2,3 in the question, despite the seeming innocence of the situation.