That's the thing with Amazon Web Services. You have a lot of options to construct your infrastructure, beginning with the simple EBS (Elastic Beanstalk) which provides an easy-to-deploy (a.k.a. quick-and-dirty way) environment.
Another option is to use EC2 and build it yourself, and since this is the way you've chosen so far, basically what you need is:
In your Route 53, create a CNAME or an A record pointing to your instance's IP address (you should use Elastic IPs to make sure your instance always get the same IP address). I would suggest a CNAME entry because you already has an A record in your zone. It makes your DNS resolution a little bit slower, but it's easier to manager through time. We can call that tools.example.com.
In your Apache configuration's directory (usually /etc/apache2/sites-available), create a file called tools.example.com.conf with the following content:
<VirtualHost *:80>
ServerName tools.example.com
ServerAdmin me@example.com
ErrorLog /srv/www/tools.example.com/logs/error.log
CustomLog /srv/www/tools.example.com/logs/access.log combined
DocumentRoot /srv/www/tools.example.com/public_html
</VirtualHost>
Create the directory which will store your site/application with:
mkdir -p /srv/www/tools.example.com/{public_html,logs}
Enable the new virtualhost and reload Apache's service:
sudo a2ensite tools.example.com.conf
sudo service apache2 reload
A tip: in most cases, using AWS infrastructure and out-of-the-box solutions is cheaper.
Note: Basically, this is what you need, but this is not 100% ideal for a production environment.
Cya!
Best Answer
Short answer: choose HVM, because Amazon suggests it.
These two images are for different instance types. From Linux AMI Virtualization Types you will understand the difference between these two types.
HVM:
PV:
In the document of AWS EC2, Amazon claims there is no significant performance difference between these two:
So just choose HVM.