There are a couple of schools of thought here. There is the Minimalist school, that really discounts a vast amount of the account. They only consider those parts that can be proven by archeological evidence to be accurate, and even then, only if it fulfills a few more criteria. So much of the account is brushed off.

The more classical school sees a large portion of the accounts as being historical. They see the accounts as being written in the same manner as other national epics and histories were written at that time. There’s a lot of exaggeration for sure, but there is a core of accuracy.

It also has to be taken into account that there are two competing accounts as well. Both the nations of Judah and Israel had their own accounts. That’s why we have multiple tellings of the same events, one came from the northern kingdom while the other came from the southern kingdom. And not, while writing history (or what amounted to history at that time) also were writing propaganda.

So it’s semi-reliable. But separating the history from everything else can be difficult.