Actually, Bernstein's inequality does not really require boundedness of the i.i.d. random summands; a finite exponential moment of the absolute value of a random summand will suffice. However, here we can just use Markov's inequality.
Let $X,X_1,\dots,X_n$ be independent identically distributed random variables (i.i.d. r.v.'s) such that $P(X=z)=\mu(z)\in(0,1)$ for all $z$ in a finite set $Z$, with $\sum_z\mu(z)=1$. Let $Y:=-\ln\mu(X)$, $Y_i:=-\ln\mu(X_i)$, and $S_n:=\frac1n\,\sum_1^n Y_i$. Then $$ES_n=EY=-\sum_z\mu(z)\ln\mu(z)=:H(\mu)>0 $$ and $$Ee^{hY}=\sum_z\mu(z)^{1-h},\quad Ee^{hS_n}=(Ee^{hY/n})^n \tag{1} $$$$Ee^{hY}=\sum_z\mu(z)^{1-h},\quad Ee^{hS_n}=(Ee^{hY})^n \tag{1} $$ for all real $h$. Note also To avoid trivialities, assume that $\max Y:=-\min_z\ln\mu(z)>-\max_z\ln\mu(z)=:\min Y$. $$-\max_z\ln\mu(z)=\min Y<EY=H(\mu)<\max Y=-\min_z\ln\mu(z).$$Then $$\min Y<EY=H(\mu)<\max Y.$$
Take now any real $t$ such that $H(\mu)=EY\le t<\max Y$. For all real $h\ge0$, by Markov's inequality, $$P(S_n\ge t)\le\exp\{-ht+\ln Ee^{hS_n}\}=\exp\{-ht+n\ln Ee^{hY/n}\}. \tag{2} $$$$P(S_n\ge t)\le\exp\{-nht+\ln Ee^{nhS_n}\}=\exp\{-nht+n\ln Ee^{hY}\}. \tag{2} $$ The derivative of the exponent $-ht+n\ln Ee^{hY/n}$$-nht+n\ln Ee^{hY}$ in $h$ is $-t+\frac{EYe^{hY/n}}{Ee^{hY/n}}$$-nt+n\frac{EYe^{hY}}{Ee^{hY}}$, which strictly and continuously increases from $-t+EY\le 0$$-nt+nEY\le 0$ to $-t+\max Y\ge0$$-nt+n\max Y\ge0$ as $h$ increases from $0$ to $\infty$, and so, the upper bound $\exp\{-ht+n\ln Ee^{hY/n}\}$$\exp\{-nht+n\ln Ee^{hY}\}$ on the right-tail probability $P(S_n\ge t)$ is minimized when $h=h_{t,+}$$h=h_{t,+}=h_{t,\mu,+}$ is the only nonnegative root of the equation $$\frac{EYe^{hY/n}}{Ee^{hY/n}}=t. \tag{3} $$$$m(h):=m_\mu(h):=\frac{EYe^{hY}}{Ee^{hY}}=t. \tag{3} $$
Similarly, for any real $t$ such that $H(\mu)=EY\ge t>\min Y$, the best upper exponential bound on the left-tail probability $P(S_n\le t)$ is $\exp\{-ht+n\ln Ee^{hY/n}\}$$\exp\{-nht+n\ln Ee^{hY/n}\}$, where now $h=h_{t,-}$$h=h_{t,-}=h_{t,\mu,-}$ is the only non-positive root of the equation $(2)$.
Thus, $$P(S_n\ge t)\le e^{-na_+(t)},\quad\text{where $a_+(t):=h_{t,+}t-\ln Ee^{h_{t,+}Y}>0$} \tag{4} $$ if $H(\mu)=EY<t<\max Y$, $$P(S_n\le t)\le e^{-na_-(t)},\quad\text{where $a_-(t):=h_{t,-}t-\ln Ee^{h_{t,-}Y}>0$} \tag{5} $$ if $H(\mu)=EY>t>\min Y$ So, these bounds exponentially decrease in $n$ if $t$ is fixed. By formulas (3.7) and (3.8) in [Chernoff], bounds $(4)$ and $(5)$ cannot be improved by replacing $a_\pm(t)$ by greater values.
In view of $(1)$, equation $(3)$ can be rewritten as $$\sum_z(t+\ln\mu(z))\mu(z)^{1-s}=0, \tag{4} $$ where $s:=h/n$,$$\sum_z(t+\ln\mu(z))\mu(z)^{1-h}=0, \tag{6} $$ and this equation can be easily solved for $s$$h$ numerically if the set $Z$ is not too large.
Note that then the upper bound in $(2)$ can be rewritten as $e^{-na}$, where $a:=st-\ln Ee^{sY}>0$ if $t\ne EY$, so that this bound exponentially decreases in $n$ if $t$ is fixed.
All this is of course well known, even in the general case of i.i.d. random summands with finite exponential moment of the absolute value. Basically, in this particular situation I have just added the first equality in $(1)$ and rewrote $(3)$ as $(4)$$(6)$.