The OT is flawed as history but obviously has points of interest if you can contextualise it a bit. Eg in the book of Ruth there's some interesting details on legal procedure and inheritance: but are they relevant to the time it was composed (600-400BC?) or 4 generations before David (pre-1000 BC sometime)? Is it an actual legal tradition or a fiction interpolated to to justify a reform?

If you're relying on it for a narrative of the course of politcal events in the Near East then you're in trouble.

Its extremely rare to find anything in the OT that's usable history. More often its "oh here's a Babylonian poem that has been copied in Psalms" or 'here's a place name vaguely similar to one mentioned in the Bible 1000 years out of context".

There's a nice debunk in Robin Lane Fox's The Unauthorized Version: Truth and Fiction in the Bible . He poses two questions: Is the Bible true? Did the authors think it was true when they wrote it? His answer on both points is usually often No, and its quite convincing.