It is not dramatic to look at, which is partly what makes it interesting. The structure is roughly oblong, measuring around 12 metres by 9 metres, and appears to be revetted, meaning its sides are held in place by a kerb of stones, a construction technique associated with deliberate, organised building rather than natural accumulation. On top of the mound, a faint circular feature about 3 metres in diameter can still be made out, defined by a low bank or kerb of sod-covered stones. The northwest end of the mound is level, while the southwest end slopes away slightly.

What is particularly telling is how the site appears across two editions of the Ordnance Survey maps. The 1837 six-inch map shows it as an oval shaded area of roughly 15 metres east to west and 10 metres north to south. By the 1913 edition, the same location is rendered quite differently, as a small rectangular structure enclosed within a polygonal boundary, the whole complex somewhat reduced in its apparent dimensions. Whether this reflects actual changes to the monument over those intervening decades, or simply a difference in how surveyors chose to record it, is an open question. Either way, the comparison suggests a site that was already losing definition by the early twentieth century, its original form gradually obscured beneath grass and time. The category of megalithic structure covers a broad range of prehistoric monuments, from burial cairns to standing stone complexes, and without excavation it remains unclear precisely what purpose this particular mound served or when it was built.