You don't have to show it and you don't have to insist that you consider the same (or more precisely: restricted) metric on the subset $B$; you might decide to consider a completely different metric on $B$ - or that you do not consider $B$ as a metric space at all!
However, it is a common phrase to talk about precisely that metric, e.g. "Let $B$ be a subset of $A$, endowed with the induced metric" and this is in fact so common that people tend to drop the "endowed with the induced metric". Of course, if $x$ and $y$ are points in $A$ have a distance $d(x,y)$m this fact does not change when we learn that $x,y$ are in fact elements of $B$ even.
What you may want to show once (and only once) in your life is that if $d\colon A\times A\to\mathbb R$ is a metric on $A$ then the restriction $d|_{B\times B}\colon B\times B\to \mathbb R$ is also a metric. But that is clear without calculation from the mere structure of the axioms of metric:
- If $d(x,y)\ge 0$ holds for all $x,y\in A$, it certainly holds for all $x,y\in B$
- If $d(x,y)=0$ with $x,y\in A$ implies $x=y$, it certainly also implies $x=y$ if we additionally know $x,y\in B$
- If $d(x,y)=d(y,x)$ holds for all $x,y\in A$, it certainly holds also for all $x,y\in B$
- If $d(x,z)\le d(x,y)+d(y.z)$ holds for all $x,y,z\in A$ it certainly holds for all $x,y,z\in B$
The crux in all four points was that we only have statements of the form $\forall x\forall y\forall z(\ldots)$ and no $\exists$ is involved.