That truncation is part of what makes the site interesting: it is a place that has been quietly altered by the ordinary business of land management, and yet enough survives to read its original form with some clarity.

The monument was recorded in detail by O'Kelly in 1942 to 1943, and the description has an appealing precision to it. A barrow, in the prehistoric sense, is a mound of earth or stone raised over a burial, sometimes ringed by a fosse, which is a cut ditch, and sometimes enclosed within a bank. This example sits within a larger circular platform roughly 36.5 metres across and about 2 metres at its highest point. Unusually, that outer platform appears to have had no fosse and no enclosing bank, which sets it somewhat apart from the more familiar forms. The barrow itself occupies the north-east quadrant of this platform: a low mound, 9 metres in overall diameter, ringed by its own fosse. The arrangement of a smaller mound within a larger raised platform is not the most common configuration, and O'Kelly thought it worth illustrating with a profile drawing published alongside the written account.

The land surrounding the monument is described as marshy, which in practice means the approach on foot is likely to be soft underfoot, particularly after rain. The river bank setting, while responsible for the drainage works that damaged the southern part of the mound, also means the site sits within a landscape that has changed relatively little in terms of its general character. There is nothing formal by way of access or interpretation here; this is not a managed heritage site with a car park and a panel. Anyone visiting would be doing so through agricultural land, and appropriate permissions and footwear would both be advisable. The profile drawing from O'Kelly's 1942 to 1943 publication remains the clearest guide to what the monument looks like in cross-section, and it rewards a look before visiting.