Words are not cited as Persian or Avestan loans just because they are attested in texts. Iranic languages have loans as well. If an Iranic word (e.g. birādar 'brother' > Turkish biradar) is without a doubt Indo-European, that is to say it has cognates in Celtic, Greek, Latin, Baltic etc then there is no doubt it is a loan into Turkic. If you're looking to debunk Iranic languages as a source of loans in Turkic languages, then you won't find any help in etymological dictionaries. In most cases, you will find that the attributions are based on rules (regular sound laws) and well known Indo-European vocabulary.
Nevertheless, not all suggested loans are Iranic. There are times where an Iranic source is suspected but not certain. What you can do then is to look at dictionaries covering Turkic languages and see if the word appears consistently in all of them. If the proposed Iranic source has no Indo-European parallels, then the chances are greater. However, there is a possibility that a word attested in both Turkic and Iranic languages has a third source e.g. Uralic or Yeniseian. Then things become even more complex.
I am facing these problems quite often and in those cases there are three books I am using to get an idea.
Oztopçu, Kurtulus, et al. Dictionary of Turkic Languages. Routledge, 2016.
Starostin, Sergei A., et al. Etymological dictionary of the Altaic languages. Vol. 3. Leiden: Brill, 2003.
Wenthe, Mark. Handbook of Comparative and Historical Indo-European Linguistics: An International Handbook. Vol. 41. Walter de Gruyter GmbH & Co KG, 2017. (the parts of the book regarding Proto-Indo-Iranic)
However, note that the Altaic theory is in a stalemate and very controversial. It can be very hard to argue for a word being Turkic based on Altaic reconstructions.