Several approaches are possible. One is to get an exact P-value and reject $H_0$ at the 5% level if it is smaller than 0.05.
Intuitively, you have observed $X = 5$ which might be taken as evidence that $\theta > 3.$ The question is whether 5 is enough bigger than 3 to be
considered 'significantly' bigger and thus reject $H_0.$
Formaly, the $=$-sign in the null hypothesis determines the 'null distribution'
used in testing. Here that's $\mathsf{Pois}(\theta = 3.)$ The P-value is
the probability of a result 'as extreme or more extreme' than 5 (in the direction of $H_1.)$
That means we want $P(X \ge 5\,|\,\theta = 3).$ You can evaluate that
using the Poisson PDF function, using a printed table of Poisson probabilities (if available), or using software. (I don't think this is
a good situation for a normal approximation.) In R statistical software
(where ppois
is a Poisson CDF) we use $P(X \ge 5) = 1 - P(X \le 4) = 0.1845.$
Thus the P-value exceeds 5% and we do not reject $H_0.$
1 - ppois(4, 3)
## 0.1847368
x = 0:4; 1- sum(dpois(x,3))
## 0.1847368
The second computation in R sums five probabilities: $P(X = 0), \dots,
P(X=4),$ where $X \sim \mathsf{POIS}(3),$ which may be mildly tedious
but certainly possible to do on a calculator.
In the figure below, the P-value is the sum of the heights of the black bars
to the right of the vertical red dashed line.
Note: You might be wondering just how large $X$ would have to be in order to
reject $H_0.$ The computation in R below shows that $X = 7$ would lead
to rejection at the $3.34\%$ level.
qpois(.95, 3) # Inverse CDF or quantile function
## 6
1 - ppois(6, 3)
## 0.03350854 # P(X >= 7) = 0.034
If yuo are familiar with models having a Monotone Likelihood Ratio, in this case the p-value can be easily calculated (under $H_0$) in the following way:
$e^{-\frac{15}{10}}\approx 0.22$
Best Answer
Yes. Distribution $\mathsf{Exp}(\lambda=3)$ with mean $1/3$ tends to give smaller values than $\mathsf{Exp}(\lambda=1)$ with mean $1.$ So you are correct to reject $H_0: \lambda = 3$ against $H_0: \lambda=1$ for large observed values $X.$
In particular, the critical value for a test at level 5% is $c = 0.999.$ That is, you would reject $H_0$ for observed $X \ge c.$
As you say, for observed value $X = 0.30,$ the P-value is $0.466 > 0.05,$ so you do not reject.
If $H_a: \lambda = 1$ is true, then the probability of rejecting based on a single observation is $P(X \ge c\,|\,\lambda=1) = 0.3584.$ With only one observation, it is not surprising to have poor power.
In the figure below, the critical value $c = 0.999$ is at the vertical red dotted line and the observed value $X = 0.5$ at the solid vertical line.
A test with only one observation may seem counter-intuitive on account of its poor power. By contrast, with $n = 10$ exponential observations, the sample mean has $\bar X_{10}\sim\mathsf{Gamma}(\mathrm{shape}=10, \mathrm{rate}=30)$ under $H_0:\lambda=3$ and $\bar X_{10}\sim\mathsf{Gamma}(10,10)$ under $H_a:\lambda=1.$ These results can be derived using moment generating functions.
Then the critical value for a test at the 5% level is $c=0.523$ and the power of this test using $\bar X_{10}$ as test statistic is about $95.9\%.$
The corresponding graph showing null and alternative distributions of $\bar X_{10}$ and the critical value is as follows: