The way to think of a scholar's work is its contribution to the community of researchers and perhaps more widely. Those contributions are described in substantive terms, and it might be that a small number of publications have great impact, although in general people who are impactful tend to be quite productive. Same for grants.

What you brag about shows who you are, not the person being described. Joe, for example, has made many contributions, widely recognized, but the best way of describing him would be in terms of two or three of the most influential contributions or lines of research. Of course, we add National Academies, Guggenheims, etc.

"peer-reviewed publications" is a sign of something fishy, since that is what we expect. Grants may or may not be indicative of quality, depends on the field. If someone won an award of medium prominence twenty years ago, it does not count for much in general. N millions of dollars of grants might be impressive, but again what really counts is contribution.

Books are a curious category. Did you write them yourself, or are they edited collections. You might say "five books," but I always then check to see if they are edited collections. On the other hand, titles always are good currency, since they are substantive, again as long as they are by the person (and not edited).

As for public service, the bigger the role, the better. Advising on some sort of state committee is nice, but bragging about it is a sign of weakness in general. But being deputy undersecretary of xyz in DC, or head of department in Sacramento means something real.

Marginal cases list publication quantity, either because the contributions do not add up, or because as in medicine the numbers are large, reflect joint pubs, and that's what they do.

The problem is that bragging about weak stuff devalues the strong contributions. On the other hand, I have no idea what works for the general public. Maybe there you can brag about numbers of peer-reviewed pubs, but I think this shows that you have little regard for the academic culture.

I look for fluff, and usually do find it. On the other hand, some people are so substantial they are bulletproof--although they too may well engage in fluffery. In general, I observe that the most prominent academics are acutely aware of their status, and when they are with others of their rank they tend to try to show off. Not all, not always, but more often than you would believe. I don't know if women are like this, but men are surely like this in my observation.