MikeS gives the correct answer.
It is case-by-case.
I agree with his edit: a nice balance of tags and action, never repeating.
I offer a frame challenge: there is more to it than just tagging dialog so we know who spoke. Every word should contribute to your story including these tags and action beats – it's not just about tags and actions.
Subtext is where you build character and conflict
When alternate tags are used, they are not arbitrarily picked from the thesaurus.
Biased tags tell us something about the character.
"Kelly teased" is valuable character information that is contrary to her dialog. Her words are rational skepticism, pure logic like a Vulcan..., but that's not her subtext motive for saying it.
With that one biased verb, Kelly becomes an interesting story element, whether the mansion is haunted or not. She is smart and aggressive, a player even if she is not leading.... Since this information is subtext, the reader feels there's something (depth) there but her motives are not specific yet.
MikeS expanded on this dichotomy by stating that Kelly doesn't lead into the mansion (she is not a rival to Josh), which de-escalates some hostility in her words. She is maybe not an emasculating bitch, she is maybe talking bravely to convince herself and Josh heard it as teasing.
Presenting the reader with conflicting information means they have to navigate their own interpretation. Even with MikeS' additional characterization, Kelly has some depth that remains undefined.
Kelly feels older than Emily who has a selfish motivation that baldly matches her words. Alternately, Emily is not playing games with Josh's ego because she is direct and practical about the crisis at hand.
Verbose thesaurus substitutions point at the author.
'Conjecture' is wrong because it undermines your protagonist. We have no setup to know how Josh arrived at his conjecture, but it's ostensibly false (until we're shown otherwise that paranormal exists).
The author is flat out telling us Josh (our Protagonist) is wrong while he's saying a thing that is wrong. It's redundant, like Emily whined.
"It looks haunted," Josh lied.
I won't re-write Josh, but I point out his character is inconsistent and that's a much bigger problem than picking a tag or action beat.
We need a hint why he is saying it looks haunted. We already know it's false on the surface, but does Josh believe it? Then his later actions 'leading' feels out-of-character (a plot hole MikeS fixed).
Is Josh trying to discourage Emily by scaring her? This completely changes the motivation for what Kelly says after. Unfortunately you can't just leave the subtext to work itself out. We need a hint what's motivating Josh.
This question always reminds me of Tom Swifty puns, which parody dialog descriptions with a double meaning:
"I'm freezing!" Tom remarked icily.
I'd like to stop by the mausoleum," Tom said cryptically."
Tom Swifties are exaggerated dialog tags. The joke is when the description is taken literally, it matches what was said in the dialog. A Tom Swifty explanation from a writer's blog: https://www.rosswelford.com/lets-talk-about-adverbs-he-said-swiftly/
Remember Tom Swifties as 'bad' examples, things to avoid. Your alternate tags need to grow the subtext, by giving contrast or nuance to the actual dialog.
Avoid repeating what was just said literally in the dialog. If it's not new information it probably isn't necessary so keep it simple and undistracting.