Boundary value analysis and testing (BVT) is fundamental in software quality assurance because faults tend to cluster at input extremes, yet testers often struggle to understand and justify why certain input-output pairs represent meaningful behavioral boundaries. Large Language Models (LLMs) could help by producing natural-language rationales, but their value for BVT has not been empirically assessed. We therefore conducted an exploratory study on LLM-generated boundary explanations: in a survey, twenty-seven software professionals rated GPT-4.1 explanations for twenty boundary pairs on clarity, correctness, completeness, and perceived usefulness, and six of them elaborated in follow-up interviews. Overall, 63.5% of all ratings were positive (4–5 on a five-point Likert scale) compared to 17% negative (1–2), indicating general agreement but also variability in perceptions. Participants favored explanations that followed a clear structure, cited authoritative sources, and adapted their depth to the reader’s expertise; they also stressed the need for actionable examples to support debugging and documentation. From these insights, we distilled a seven-item requirement checklist that defines concrete design criteria for future LLM-based boundary explanation tools. The results suggest that, with further refinement, LLM-based tools can support testing workflows by making boundary explanations more actionable and trustworthy.