It all depends what you mean by 'historically factual'. That statement itself is laden with presuppostions. Our idea of history is fairly young, as the assumed 'third person' or disinterested observed history writing is fairly recent. Even then, it is an affectation, as no one is really being objective but writing within their cultural paradigm and belief system.
So, when we write on the ancient world, we mine ancient texts for what we can slot comfortably into our idea of 'if a modern person had been present then, what would he have perceived occured', and call this History. We cannot even be sure what happened a week ago was factual, as look at the different ways various media or sources interpret or present events - and now we need to look at 2000-3000 year old texts and decide this?
That said, I believe a lot of information is there. The writers thereof certainly believed in it, and if they were to adopt our affectation anachronistically, they would consider it 'historically factual' in all likelihood. Does all of it fit within our modern historical paradigm? Well, no. Does this mean it is in some sense not true? Also no. People used to think the Iliad and Odyssey were completely made up, but then Schlieman found Troy and Mycenae. The Hitittes in the Bible were thought fictional by the late 18th and early 19th century scholars, then the tablets of Hatussas and the Neo-Hititte states were unearthed. What is 'historically factual' is not set in stone - seeing as sometimes it is set in stone in the form of ruins or inscriptions; but then, interpretation can be the devil in the details - from things considered hoaxes like the Kensington Runestone and the Jesus Ossuary, to the Nazareth Decree ascribed to Claudius, the Arthur stone at Tintagel, or the Res Gestae of Augustus. Writings like De Situ Britanniae were considered factually accurate, only for us to set them aside as spurious later. Sufficed to say, what is historically factual today, is different from what had been historically factual a hundred years ago.
Anyway, after hedging my answer and if I adopt a persona of a 21st century historian, I would say that Kings and Chronicles certainly holds much useful historical information. This starts to dissipate as you move backwards from David onwards, but is not wholely absent. Things like Joseph's name of Zaanath Paneah certainly seem echoes of something, especially if placed next to Osarseph of Manetho or the Hyksos (who seem to have been not conquerors, but immigrants that rose to become an elite, according to new genetic evidence, before being overthrown). Others like Esther or Jonah are more literary, and even listed as Writings of the Ketuvim amongst Jews. But again, the answer depends on what epistemological meaning you apply to the concept of 'historically factual'.
